OrderedChaos

I hate to break this to you David, but you are a mutant. Don't feel bad, because I am too, and so is everyone else on this forum is too. Let me give you an excerpt from my biology textbook Integrated Principles of Zoology:
And that is the more conservative figure. So unless you have some serious deformation we don't know about, I am sure that you are doing just fine with the mutations given to you by your parents.

theyeti

David, just what would you consider evidence? Here are some PubMed searches on <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed" target="_blank">neutral mutations</a> (130 hits), <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=&DB=PubMed" target="_blank">neutral evolution</a>(1037 hits) and <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed" target="_blank">mutation rates</a> (7190 hits). You can peruse the literature there if you're not satisfied. Why did you ask us in the first place if you won't believe us?

Not really. The environment does have an effect on mutation rates. But more importantly, it has an effect on whether or not the mutation is neutral, beneficial, or harmful. I don't know how many times I've said this, but these terms have no meaning without respect to the environment. For example, a mutation that down-regulates a digestive enzyme might be harmful for you, but beneficial to a parasitic worm.

When we talk about mutation rate per generation, we are necessarily talking about germ-line cells, so your distinction there is irrelevant. But think about what you said with, "if the majority of mutations were harmful, then every organism would have ... been removed by natural selection." Are human beings extinct? Then I think your question is answered. It does bear noting that many populations and species do go extinct, and the accumulation of negative (or the faliure to accumulate positive) mutations undoubtedly plays a role. And when these groups go extinct, new ones evolve from the survivors to take their place.

For the millionth time, YES! Not only is there a chance, but it's been observed. Please see <a href="http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html" target="_blank">this page</a>. Unfortunately, I can seem to get talkorigins to work right now, but they have a page with some good examples too.

What, did you actually travel to Belarus? There was an increase in certain cancers, but I don't know about lots of deformed babies. Yes, there's the possibility that someone had a "good" mutation. But it's not going to be apparent in the form of an extra arm or something if that's what you're expecting. Mutations work by modifying existing structures. Consider the fact that some people have long arms, and others have short ones. Some people have muscular arms, and others have bony ones. Where do you think this variation came from? It came from mutations. Depending on the environment, selection will sometimes drive the average up or down the scale of variation while mutation keeps adding new variation.

I also need to mention that your going on about massive dosages of radiation is not the proper focus. Massive doses will cause huge ammounts of mutation that will not only cause deformities in offspring, but also somatic mutations that will lead to things like cancer. Your basically talking about a situation where any beneficial mutations will get swamped by negative ones before they've had a chance to spread. This won't happen with a normal backgroud rate. However, with a very large population and fast reproductive rates, like with bacteria, massive doses can produce positive mutations that will quickly spread. In fact, this is one way that researchers generate positive mutations (like antibiotic resistance) in the lab.

theyeti

Coragyps

davidH: I'm reposting something I put on here in December - I think it's a very clear example of a "beneficial mutation", taken, as it must by definition be, in the context of the malaria-ridden environment where it occurred.
Please ignore my ad hominem appeals; those guys appear to have left anyway. Just read it over and answer the three questions in your own mind. Note also that a quick search for "hemoglobin C" on Google will find you several medical-advice websites which say that most people who are homozygous for HbC don't have any symptoms from their variant hemoglobin.

Oolon Colluphid

My apologies. The point of offering several is to show that there is rather a lot of evidence to support what I’m telling you, and there is usually different info at each place. I don’t go to the trouble of finding them, reading enough of them to know they do meet the requirements (if I’ve not already read them), typing the laborious UBB code round ’em and posting them just to waste your time, or mine.

As to you following them... if you have, how come you repeat objections already covered in the links? You have to do more than just click on them and give them a brief look, you know.

Because, it seems, you’re not reading and trying to comprehend what we’re linking to. There’s no time limit here. Take all you need... then come back if you still have questions.

Absolutely. Couldn’t agree more. Uh... ever thought of trying that method with the bible too? I detect just a hint of a double standard here...

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Superfluous, (n): more than is needed or required.

Unnecessary, (n): not needed or wanted, or more than is needed or wanted.

Redundant, (n): Exceeding what is necessary.

<a href="http://skepdic.com/occam.html" target="_blank">Occam’s Razor</a>.

See also: not essential, excess to requirements, unwarranted, too much for the purpose, surfeit, nimiety, parsimony, entities multiplied beyond necessity...

I’ve said this before, but you again show that you’re not listening:

Evolution. Does. Not. Rule. God. Out.

He. Could. Have. Been. Involved.*

But. The. Explanation. We. Have. Does. Not. Need. His. Input. In. Order. To. Work.

(* If a creator was involved, he was involved in just the sort of ways that look as if he wasn’t. In fact, given the other characteristics ascribed to him (loving, forgiving etc) the evidence is heavily against his involvement.)

God is very likely not needed to set the replicators going, since there are a variety of non-supernatural explanations. See the links. We’re only talking chemistry, after all. If such an entity exists, why would he fart around using chemistry? Why not really do it Genesis-style?

God is certainly not needed to explain life once this has happened. In fact, the evidence goes strongly against any design involvement. If god is such a designer, he is phenomenally cruel and incompetent.

There is doubtless a big question mark over your great great great grandmother’s name. Not knowing it does not mean you didn’t have one. Not knowing an answer is not the same as there not being one. And anyway, it is a question that is being strenuously looked into. The whole of science is based on questions, the most common of which is “ I don’t know, let’s work on it”. All those links about the origins of life I offered...? Sorry there were so many, but it is not that big a question mark. They show that there are a number of hypotheses about it, all plausible, all with evidence supporting them, all being investigated for further evidence, and none requiring supernatural intervention. They may all be wrong. Maybe it was the pixies. How would you go about finding out?

Even if we ultimately had no idea, all you would be left with is a ‘god of the gaps’. If or when we do solve the problem, where’s your god then?

By Zeus! Two things in a single post of yours I wholeheartedly agree with! To base your faith on the bible, but to overlay it with other stuff, is, I agree, to put yourself further away from ‘god’s word’. To me, the layers of ‘interpretation’ are excuses, ad hoc arguments and half-arsed rationalisation... plastered on to cover the gaping holes in the original ideas. Because if you take the descriptions in Genesis literally, then the real world around us utterly refutes it. Thus I reject the whole lot.

Well you have now. I won’t give the name, but my old school is run by the Catholic de la Mennais teaching brotherhood. There was mass once a week -- which I, being nominally CofE, didn’t have to go to.

Then what you’ve got there is an Argument from Personal Incredulity. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

The odds of what, exactly? Please be specific.

You might find these two links of interest; they’re both quite short.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html" target="_blank">Evolution and Chance </a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance-theistic.html" target="_blank">Chance from a theistic perspective</a>

There’s <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000070" target="_blank"> this recent thread</a> about a mutation which allows humans to drink milk on into adulthood. There is also a mutation which has allowed western humans to drink alcohol (fermented drinks being relatively safe from the dysenteric bacteria your loving creator made... you do know that diarrhoeal diseases -- caused by these allegedly created things -- kill three million young children each year? That’s one every ten minutes.). And it takes but a point mutation to turn normal haemoglobin into the sickle-cell version, which is harmful... unless you live in regions where Plasmodium falciparum and Anopheles species are also common, in which case it is beneficial -- and widespread. See also Coragyps’s post above.

They’ve been at it about fifty years. On earth, there’s at least a five hundred million year time window. Let’s line those numbers up:

50
500,000,000

Do you think they might, if they go at it for another ten million years?

And anyway, it doesn’t matter to evolution where the replicators came from. Wow, I just got the strongest sense of déjà vu when I typed that... spooky!

TTFN, Oolon

Peez

Just to be clear, I presume that you mean that the environment determines whether a given mutation is neutral, beneficial, or harmful (and not that there is anything Lamarkian going on. I will also add that "environment" includes the other genes in the organism.

Peez

liquid

These are all denominations that accept evolution and state that it conflicts with their teachings in no way whatsoever.

1. The Catholic Church.

Now, I notice you don't accept the catholic denomination as Christian, despite the fact they are the largest christian group, with the longest history (shared with the orthodox church), traceable right back to St Peter, who have done the most biblical research of any organisation. To me, it is surprising they recognise YOU as christian! In fact, by the meaning of the word christian (follower of christ), they fit perfectly well, even if their interpretation differs. But that is another arguement.

They support evolution.

2. The orthodox church.

One of the largest christian denominations in the world. The oldest denomination in the world. The denomination that sticks most closely to the original christian ceremonies. The denomination that looks after all the important christian religious sites in the middle east.

They support evolution.

3. The Anglican curch

One of the largest protestant denominations in the world.

They support evolution

4. United Methodist church

5. World Lutheran federation.

6. United Presbytarian church

7. United Universalist Church

8. blah blah blah I could waffle on for ever - there are almost as many denominations as grains of sand on a beach, but I have shown quite clearly that christians who support evolution (be it theistic or not) are in the majority, not you.

Of course, you'll claim that only your lot are the 'real christians', but I think that this speaks for itself.

PS - what are 'your lot'?

Oolon Colluphid

Wonderful Liquid! I was hoping someone would do something like that.

However... do you have any references, or are we to take your word for it? ie, I know this is correct, you know this is correct, but David obviously doesn't... any links for him to ignore?

Cheers, Oolon

liquid

Links, references, should have done that.

Most of that comes from 'Voices for Evolution'

McCollister, Betty, ed Voices for Evolution, Berkeley, CA: NCSE

A collection of statements by these organisations and others on the question.

An electronic copy can be found <a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/voices/#part3" target="_blank">here</a>.

Unfortunately, it is US-centric (though creationists tend to be far more of a minority outside the US), and not comprehensive either (Why I don't know. Perhaps because there are so many organisations - of both kinds - it would run forever), but it'll do.

davidH

Oolon, in response to that may I just point out that the 500,000,000 years was needed because of the odds and the perfect conditions needed. Assuming of course that there was this 500,000,000 year window.

Considering all the other amazing things scientists have been able to do and the technology available to them now, if life did come about by chance then scientists should have little difficulty showing this and creating life.
The fact that scientists haven't yet been able to create life, even when they can create the perfect environment and bring all the components together that are needed and yet still can't create life, raises serious doubts in my mind that life could have arise by chance. With the aid of powerful computers I have little doubt that they have simulated the conditions and all and know what they should do.
How come they can't create life? I mean how hard could it be if life can arise from pure chance? I'd be very interested to know what is causing them so many of these problems.

That again is circular reasoning. I could also have said, "Human beings aren't extinct therefore because the majority of mutations are harmful the theory on this is wrong.
You can't use that type of reasoning.

No I didn't travel to Belarus. But I did read up on it in a national geographic magazine and I saw all the photos - they are hard to argue with.

Ah yes, I just remembered something. Introns were suppose to be useless DNA (except in some cases), since most mutations as you say were neutral, is there some evidience of this in bacteria?
As far as I remember bacteria don't have introns and yet we do, but surely bacteria should have introns if most of the mutations are neutral. It was said here that mutations happen a lot more in bacteria.
Isn't the fact that we have introns attributed to the neutral mutations and the useless ones?

Yeah, I know about this (though I'll do more reading on it).
One thing - what caused this mutation in the first place? Was it radiation - and so pure chance? Or was it something to do with the effects of malaria and so not pure chance?
-Just a few questions I have.

True it is a benefical mutation for the person who has it - they don't have full blown sickle cell anemia and they are more resistant to malaria.
You provided me with a link to show that there are no obvious side affects - I'll read up about that too.
Though if that person has children with another person with this mutation the children are very likely to have full blown sickle cell anemia. Therefore it's likely to assume that in a fairly closed population there will reach a point where everyone will have this mutation that has been passed on to them by their parents.
Once everyone has this mutation then the population will start declining over generation because more children will be born with sickle cell anemia and die.
So in theory the population numbers of people with this benefical mutation would drop.

Does that make any sense? That's just me thinking out loud - because I know from experience that african communities are tight - that's why I assume a fairly closed population.

Yeah, I know and I have. The objections I repeat are those that the answers I have been given don't satisfy me completely.

No there's no double standard. I have done the same with the Bible and it has stood against all the objections given to it.
Yet where the Bible conflicts is the view of creation and evolution. Hence the reason why I am here.

Very true, and yet not knowing an answer doesn't mean accepting a theory that seems plausible and yet might be wrong. Until an answer is given every possible answer must be considered.

ok, where ever there is blind chance involved there has to be an odd. - correct?
Natural selection isn't blind chance but it takes place after a mutation which is blind chance takes place.
There's nothing to say that mutations had to happen in exactly the spot on the DNA double helix where everything in that area won't get messed up.
So as far as I can see there has to be odds and it's the size of these odds that determine whether the theory is feasible.
There's no agruement from from Personal Incredulity, it's just logic as far as I can see.

Not really sure what you are trying to say here. Could you elaborate on this - western humans to drink alcohol - Can't everyone drink alcohol if they so chose to without it being harmful to them?
If you could please explain this a bit more clearly - thanks.

How so? Maybe I missed a link but I have never come across this in my reading before.

Exactly - a follower of Christ. Maybe catholics are a follower of the Pope more than a follower of Jesus. Where did Jesus say to pray to his mother instead of to him?
Isn't that limiting God? The same Jesus that said "let the little children come onto me" the fact that the curtain in the temple was ripped from top to bottom (symbolising the allowing of us to enter into God's presence). And yet they pray to mary. They say the Hail Mary a certain number of times when they sin to get forgiveness - when infact forgiveness is at the foot of the cross by the blood of Jesus - not by reciting.

This may not be the case for all catholics but I follow Jesus - not man or the traditions man has imposed that aren't in the Bible.
One last thing as this is off the topic - what is the Latin name for the Pope? And what does it mean?

As for the posts Liquid put up,

lol, creationists tend to be a minority outside the US. Am, what population does the US have out of the whole world population?
Whether the majority in the US are evolution supporting I don't know, but I do think that here in the UK that is not the case at all, and in the rest of the world for that matter.

I can't be sure but this doesn't seem to me like they are accepting evolution. All they seem to be stating is that they oppose introducing scientific creationism (whatever that involves) because of the US consitution preventing religious dogmatism in schools. But to me anyway this doesn't seem to be saying "we accept evolutionism". However if u can give me a background to whatever was going on at the time it would be helpful.

I have to head on now. Yo, I have one question that has nothing to do with any of this.
Liquid - are you the same liquid that plays in Empirequest? Just wondering because it seemed a coincidience that a person would chose that name.

Writer@Large

Originally posted by davidH, and ruthlessly paraphrased to prove a point by Writer@Large:

Considering all the other amazing things scientists have been able to do and the technology available to them now, if God did exist then scientists should have little difficulty showing this and proving His existence.
The fact that scientists haven't yet been able to find God, raises serious doubts in my mind that God could exist in the first place. With the aid of powerful computers I have little doubt that they have simulated the conditions and all and know what they should do.
How come they can't find God? I mean how hard could it be if God is the Truth, the Way, and the Light? I'd be very interested to know what is causing them so many of these problems.

I won't even bother explaining the sarcasm here ...

--W@L