promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted

Evolutionists: Answer me with an intelligent answer. The "you're ignorant" rant doesn't work on me. So answer?

this: Hominid evolution (and all evolution) is explained to be the passing of beneficial mutations of the genome, bringing variations of adaptation to fruition in macro-evolution over millions of years. The problem with this is that the mutations of the natural variations allowed have micro-machines in the cell which equally destroy both mutations which are advantageous and harmful to the species. This being the proven case, and the fact that almost 100% of mutations are either harmful or fatal to the host, how can it be that we are said to be evolving rather than devolving, which would also support entropy? If you have a probable 10,000 mutations which yielded negative results to every 1 result positive to the host's environment, mathematically, the positive advances would fall beneath the negative influences of mutations. Furthermore, if evolution is nature's natural way of advancing functionality of complexities, why does the cell fight so effectively against all mutations and limit the variations of adaptation in DNA? Do you know what I'm talking about and can you give me an answer which I cannot find in textbooks? Thus far I believe micro-evolution is nothing more than limited natural variations allowed within the DNA of each species.

Update:

Call D: That was almost poetic and easily understood. It did absolutely nothing to answer my question, yet provides support for common ancestry. Thus, mathematically, we are descendant or, during biological design, share genetic makeup. Because you list a negative mutation it appears to rule out intelligent design sharing in the make-up our DNA. However, the same environmental cause of the deficiency could easily have infiltrated chimp and humans. For every mutation there exists a natural cause in the environment. Chimps, being so much like hominids, could easily have been influenced by the virus simultaneously as "hominids". Whatever the root cause of the mutation would have migrated to the most accessible location in both species. This would then "appear" to be ancestry rather than a common infiltration. Yet when we add up the mathematical differences, if such a number could be added, or has been, it would overwhelmingly support each being it's own, unique spe

Update 2:

...species. Yet if this did prove a common ancestry at a period of time, a greater problem would exist: why would a great percentage of the evolving species fall millions of years behind hominds and remain chimps? Could such a gap in evolution be accounted for, seeing that we all live on the same planet and are all subjected to similar environments. Why are chimps still chimps and so far behind in wvution if we were once the same and on equal playing fields? It doesn't add up. What adds up is that the virus infiltrated both chimps and humans because we have similar genetic make-up which made us both susceptible.

Update 3:

Plague: I understand that all too clearly. Now do the number of negative mutations for 7 billion people and go back millions of years and you will find it to be astronomically higher and far outweighing the positive which carry forward. And even with the benefit the positive ones would have on species' ability to function, we would still be devolving rather than evolving. For the negative mutations are inherited, too. There is no comparison. You're presenting a football game with only one minor league team on the field, and ignoring that they're playing against the New York Giants. You can say your tug-of-war team wins if you ignore the opposition, but in genetics, negative mutations carried forward far outweigh positive benefits and throws your entire equation off.

Update 4:

Joe: you should try reading. I directed the question to evolutionists, not atheists. I put it in the R&S forum because it is relative to the I.D. vrs evolution argument. If you have a problem with it, don't read it. But many religious people would find it relevant.

Update 5:

Merlin: You've made yourself a fool. Growing from birth has nothing to do with evolutionary change or the theory of it. It's simply a following of exact DNA instructions of my traits. That was very dumb.

Update 6:

Cali: Before 2 decade are complete, you will bow before the Son of God. Everything you have said is meaningless, repetitive rhetoric of blind narrow-minded hatred of faith. You disgust me in your every word and are a disgrace to the millions of faithful who have suffered for the truth. You will pay for every single word you have written to me. You will not be forgiven and your time upon the earth is very short. Wrath is the medicine you have prescribed for your warped soul. So you shall surely receive it.

14 Answers

Relevance
  • NDMA
    Lv 7
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    It is even more of a mathematical miracle than that. Not just any mutation will do. To be subject to selection the mutation must on on a germ cell. If the mutation does not code for anything useful, more mutations must happen on the same gene until it codes for some novel trait that enhances the survival of those with that trait. That is how natural selection works, genetic traits that give the creature a survival advantage become dominant because those with the trait do better than those without the trait. This is where you enter it the area of mathematical miracles. Not just one but thousands and hundreds of thousands of these mathematical miracles. This is one reason why I assert it takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than creation...

    Cali d.

    Actually cancer researchers looking at links between retrovrius and cancer have found that the the cancer causing retrovirus targets specific areas of the gene. Meaning the chance of the same retrovirus strain affecting the same area of a gene on different individuals is about 1 and 1 because that is how the retrovirus causes the cancer. Of course all of this has been published peer reviewed journals for more than 5 years so there is no reason anybody on top of current events would make such outdated claims..

    A decade ago it was thought that chimps and humans genome was 99% the same but that number has been scaled back to about 89% overall with some genes differing more than 25%. This too has been well published in the journals since about 2004 so once again your claims are out dated and inaccurate.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    You don't understand it, therefore you figure no one can, therefore you figure god did it.

    Actually, that's what many think about people in your position, but it's really the opposite.

    You start with the science level of shepherds several thousand years ago and cannot go further. Therefore you try to find facts that could be used to refute evolution.

    But anyway, you are correct that evolution is not an easy process because of the harmful nature of many mutations. But not all are harmful. Note the first reference. It can be a rough ride, but it's not impossible.

    Check out the second reference to see all the kinds of mutations. Not all mutations are harmful and not all mutations are beneficial either. Note blue eyes versus brown eyes.

    However, some mutations that are neither harmful nor beneficial can be beneficial when an aspect of the environment changes. Then the mutation can be beneficial and those that don't have it will have a statistically lower chance for survival.

    So yes, evolution is not easy to understand, there's plenty of mysteries about it to discover and new discoveries about it are happening all the time. However, sticking with the science level of a shepherd culture of a few thousand years ago and saying a mythological creature did it all isn't really a good alternative answer.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    So... any day now we can expect a revolutionary new paper in a Science Review mag where you're gonna shatter the scientific world's view of evolution.

    You'll make a fortune - don't forget me - I'm sorry for calling you an IDiot all those times - I was joking... don't forget me, right?

    Seriously...

    “Fact = verifiably accurate data

    Law = statement which is always true under specific circumstances

    Hypothesis = testable, potentially falsifiable, explanation of facts/laws

    Theory = unifying framework explaining all of the above.”

    “All the available evidence from any source anywhere supports permits or aligns with evolution unanimously and exclusively… there is no factual evidence against evolution but if there was that would not be evidence for creationism.”

    “For evolution to be a fake the following conditions would have to be fulfilled:

    > Every university in the world would have to be in on the deception.

    > Every biologist would have to be a liar.

    > Every teacher of science would have to be in on it.

    > And most of the other sciences too.

    > The majority of drugs could NOT have been invented…

    > Nor would they work.

    And so on…”

    You believe you were created by an invisible desert psychopath 6000 years ago.

    Good onya mate.

    ~

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    1. There is more than one way to evolve.

    2. If you want an example of a constantly evolving organism (although not alive) look at the flu virus.

    3. Other than that, look it up. Mutations are the least common attribution to evolution, but the most easily proven. Other factors include a behaviour change due to a climate/biome change, a food source becoming extinct/hard to find, or simple natural defense techniques. Also, mutations are much more common in lower life forms and are more likely to be beneficiary.

    I take it from your lack of response that you are simple shaking your head and saying 'I don't like any of these answers'. I dare you to find any evidence (with a source, not made up) to counter their claims. By the way, evolutionists are commonly referred to as biologists.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Cali d
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    The genomes of humans and chimpanzees are almost identical and contain about 3 billion base pairs each. This is by direct chemical analysis, not by "theory". In both genomes the remains of retroviruses that once infected germ line cells but did not kill the cells may be found. These are inherited. In the case of humans and chimps, there are seven (or perhaps more by now) identical retroviral sequences in identical locations in both genomes. This is not a "theory" but observed facts. The chances that a retrovirus will insert itself in any particular spot are one in three billion. The chances that it will insert itself in identical spots in both species are even smaller. something like 1 in 9 billion. The chance that seven of them will do it independently are something like 1 in 10 to the 80th power. That number approaches the number of atoms in the known Universe. That is apart from any anatomical, biochemical or behavioral similarities between chimpanzees and humans. Therefore the chance that humans and chimpanzees did not have a common ancestor are less than 1 in 10 to the 80th power.

    EDIT: You can blindly follow your religion when there are 100s of others out there. It's cool with me if you choose to be delusional. It's your choice to live your 1 and only life in the matrix. You know scientists have found other species of primates quite recently filling gaps of evolution theoreis. At least they are trying to find things out, rather than blindly follow a book from 1000s of years ago. Your theory on why chimps look the same now, is an ignorant statement. Maybe you should go back to college and study the subject you don't understand.

    ''About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indoctrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.''

    - A. Einstein.

    "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Roberts

    You should read quotes from several past presidents and founding fathers bash the church. It might open your eyes a little bit. But you are one of those guys that refuse to accept that what you've been brainwashed on isn't real. I bet you are also one of those guys that refuses to watch the movie religulous, cause it will make you feel DUMB.

    To deny evolution because of your religion is JUST AS STUPID as the people that denied the world was round because of religion, hanging onto the whole flat earth thing. In 100 years, people like you will be laughed at as well.

    Jesus is a homo. Muhamed is a transvestite. Allah is a hermaphrodite. You are delusional.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Your question explains why evolution takes such a long time. The cell does not always fight effectively against all mutations. That is the flaw in your chain of logic.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    you dont seem to understand the scale of which this is occurring. about 1 in every 1000 nucleotides during DNA replication result in a mutation, and then 1 out of every 100 of them dont get fixed. 1 in 100 of them are good. leading to 1 in 10,000,000 mutations being good.

    HOWEVER, we have about 3.3 billion nucleotides in 1 human genome alone, coupled with 7 billion people on the planet, leaving 2310000000000000000 nucleotides for all people, let alone all the living things on earth.

    that leaves 231000000000 good mutations for all people. a single good mutation doesnt lead to much but those add up over the course of millions of years and leads to significant evolutionary change.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    You're ignorant....and yes, I think that worked on you. Why are you asking atheists this question? Shouldn't you be asking scientists? There is a science section to YA!, and that's the appropriate venue for you question, considering that over 97% of professional scientists believe in evolution.

    Evolution is not necessary for atheism.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Why on Earth are you asking this in religion and spirituality?

    None of your objections are very good, go ask a biologist.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    How about this?

    You are an idiotta. If you know what it is.

    P.s. You do change dont you? Or are you the same since your birth? That change is your personal or individual evolution. Fool.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.