Evolutionist what do you think about this?

I don't believe in evolution or creationism, but read what I Just skimmed across.

(Dr. Lee Septer)

All point mutations studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.

(Dr. Warner Gitt)

Mutations could only cause a change in existing information. The results are injuring.

Also the mutations in bacteria and viruses have been armful mutations, not positive mutations.

Is this why our homo relatives never mutated gills, wings, or claws?


Who said that I thought the world was created 5000 years ago?

Also if someone has a repeated gene for arms. How does that make a new bodypart?

I'm not starting an argument and I'm not relgious. I'm jsut asking a damn question.

Update 2:

You are so right Ethan. I asked this Q in the Anthropology section. I also asked here because this seems to be where most of the evolutionist dwell.

26 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Gene duplications can create additional genetic material.

    "Is this why our homo relatives never mutated gills, wings, or claws?"

    Well, aside from the fact that large mutations like that are going to kill the organism before it develops, there's really no reason to evolve those features. Why would we, or our relatives benefit from having gills or wings?

    There isn't a silver bullet that will destroy evolution. I mean, honestly, don't you think scientists have thought about where the genetic material came from?

    Source(s): "Also if someone has a repeated gene for arms. How does that make a new bodypart?" It doesn't, and a mutation that does your entire arm is again, probably going to kill the organism. You can have point mutations change that genetic material around, though. There are also things like frame shift mutations, but I'd really rather not explain it.
  • 1 decade ago

    Never heard of Lee Septer and Google can't find any reference to him either, but single point substitutions are not the only form of mutation. Each human sell has around 6 billion possible locations for such a substitution and only a tiny fraction have been studied, so he's not speaking with any authority.

    Gitt is a so called "information scientist" not a biologist. He doesn't know what he's talking about. there are plenty of explanations of beneficial changes, I've pasted just 1 site as an example.

    Bacteria have become resistent to antibiotics through mutation, thats an improvement (from the bacteria's point of view).

    Variations caused by mutation form the basis of natural selection, which is the process by which evolution occurs. Gills, wings or claws are significant changes that would have needed a much greater timescale than the 3 or 4 million years that the genus homo has been around.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I know it is not the type of answer you look for, and I know that it may seem that I have no idea how to answer you, so I put just a quote.

    The true is that, I don't know how to answer you. I'm not a biologist. But, I'm sure, that if you put this same question in the Biology section, probably a professional will be able to give you an explanation.

    And I believe in evolution, not because of the little mistakes that it has, because of all the proof that it has given to me, which any type of God could.

    Anyway, the quote is this one:

    "Nature never is wrong. What is wrong is what we think we know about it"

    I heard it in The X Files. It was said by the character Dana Scully, but I have no idea who really said that.

    Good luck, and believe me, if you put this question in biology, you would probably get better and more accurate answers.


  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Kyos Girl, the 2 individuals that you quote are not very reliable since both are pseudo-science creationists. Mutations in bacteria can be harmful to humans, but the mutation is helpful to the bacteria. Were you just funning us by selecting Gitt and Septer for quotes?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Please turn to Professor Richard Lenski 2008 experiment showing a positive mutation in E.Coli bacteria. Of course, Lenski made massive changes to the environment to precipitate a mutation and we would expect that, given environments rarely undergo dramatic change, then mutations are unlikely to improve on the prior mutations leading to the inital organism. Haldane knew this stuff.

    Read a bit of Stephen Jay Gould too if you want to get more understanding of mutations in nature.

  • Mia
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    We have observed instances of genetic mutations increasing genetic information.



    The results are not always detrimental as you claim.


    We have never evolved gills or wings or whatever because two factors are involved. First, the genetic mutation which is itself random. We haven't had any that would lead that direction. Second, natural selection has not favored those mutations for human survival in select environments if they did occur.

  • 1 decade ago

    Garbage. As point mutations are known to reverse (by a second point mutation), you cannot lose information both ways and return to the starting point.

    The data actually show positive information gaining mutations occur.


  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    If you have no religious beliefs regarding creationism and you are doubting evolution as a scientific theory, why aren't you asking this question in the biology and science section where you will get more detailed and helpful answers? How does this relate to religion and spirituality?

  • 1 decade ago

    Why don't you ask the question in the science sections?


    In this place you will find religious ad non-religious people.

    That covers the whole of humanity.

    In the science section you will find people who know more about science. So you may not get a gazillion useless answers, but you may get one or two good ones.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Are you saying an evolutionist believes that all changed occured because of mutations?

    I believe it was all about survival of the fittest and natural selection.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.