Can random mutations increase fitness?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Natural Selection does not possess the power to create something new. I think I explained this before.

Natural Selection needs "favorable variations"(Mutations) which CHANCE to occur.

So you see Natural Selection depends on Mutation, or in other words "favorable variations", which depend on the CHANCE of occurence.

So Chance is the building block of the theory. If that Chance did not occur then there would be no "favorable variation", or Mutations, without the Mutations, Natural Selection can do nothing. Because it has nothing to act on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, I've always agreed to this. The thing is when I ask a normal person who believes in Evolution they thinks it a fact. When it actually is based completely on chance.

Well here is a link I found.

http://www.creationevolution.net/irreducible_complexity.htm

I just want to say that I don't know much about Irreducible Complexity, but it is a very compelling theory.

You probably know you the same stuff that I know. So you can do your own search about this concept. As you said there are many pro-creationist sites, and many pro-evolutionist sites. The site I provided, I think is creationist. I'm not sure though, but it seems like it is. I only presented this site to you because it has example of Irreducible Complexity other sites only had information.

 

You are right about the part on Sex. But Sex doesn't give you a completely new Specie.

And as for Irriducible Complexity. The idea is compelling. And I am not supporting the idea, i'm just sharing it with you.

 

Well if you believe in God the way we do then you wouldn't have asked the question, how did God do it?

Anyways Science cannot even show us how was the first cell formed. If you read the Cell Theory it clearly states that cells come from pre-existing cells.

Now this is an obvious question. How did this first living cell get formed?

The cell is very complex, it cannot be made by "self-organizing" mechanism to do this. Because almost all the components of the cell are needed for the cell to work. This means all must be formed simitaneously.

Even DNA is very complex, and it is arranged in very precise way. It obviously cannot be a product of chance. DNA is so small but it contains so much information. DNA is an extrodanary molecule.

There is no theory which can give us the answer to this question. How did life being? (by life I mean the first living cell)

 

Despite the shear weight of evidence that evolution has occurred some people refuse to believe, possible reasons are:
1. It violates the validity of certain religions claims and thus believing in evolution forces these people to question the accuracy of their religion. Even so believing in evolution does not prevent you from believing in a god.
2. Do to inaccuracy, vague nature of theories, and conflicting discussion between biologist to this day on explaining the workings of evolution one could come to the erroneous assumption that evolution never happened, this is a fallacy because in negates the evidence for evolution, just because we don't fully understand it does not mean it did not happen.

 

See you are going into circular reasoning. Sex to Mutation and Mutation to sex. Either way you go CHANCE is what you need for the Evolution theory to work.

 

Well the Fossil Record has shown animal come suddenly. This would offend the theory.

I read a few days ago that a 7 million years old skull was just found in Africa. Which almost looks like if it was a skull of a modern man. Take that as a blow to the theory.

It is still being analyzed so we will see the results when it all comes out.
Here are some quotes on this issue. But I'm not here to debate this so, this is only for your information.

"The fossil has set the cat among the pigeons in the world of Darwinism. In its article giving news of the discovery, the world-renowned journal Nature admitted that "New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution."
John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002

Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University said that "This [discovery] will have the impact of a small nuclear bomb."
D.L. Parsell, "Skull Fossil From Chad Forces Rethinking of Human Origins," National Geographic News, July 10, 2002

The reason for this is that although the fossil in question is 7 million years old, it has a more "human-like" structure (according to the criteria evolutionists have hitherto used) than the 5 million-year-old Australopithecus ape species that is alleged to be "mankind's oldest ancestor." This shows that the evolutionary links established between extinct ape species based on the highly subjective and prejudiced criterion of "human similarity" are totally imaginary.

John Whitfield, in his article "Oldest Member of Human Family Found" published in Nature on July, 11, 2002, confirms this view quoting from Bernard Wood, an evolutionist anthropologist from George Washington University in Washington:

"When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder." he [Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids... How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated.
John Whitfield, "Oldest member of human family found," Nature, 11 July 2002

The comments of Henry Gee, the senior editor of Nature and a leading paleoanthropologist, about the newly discovered ape fossil are very noteworthy. In his article published in The Guardian, Gee refers to the debate about the fossil and writes:

Whatever the outcome, the skull shows, once and for all, that the old idea of a "missing link" is bunk... It should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.
The Guardian, 11 July 2002

I'm not going to say much about this discovery. This is all I know so do your own research. I provided you with the quotes so that will give you a place to start.

Here is the name of the fossil: Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Evolutionist claim this of being more of an ape-like skull. But don't trust anyone, not even me. You can see the quotes above, and what they suggest about the theory of evolution.

I'm not going to say anything more about this issue. Because this is ALL I know.

 

All right I show you why I think your reasoning was circular.

First when we talked about Mutation, we agreed that it depended on CHANCE.

then you said not everything depends on CHANCE. So said sex could create variation. Then I said that sex cannot creat a new specie. Then you answered it cannot do it alone it would need variations. In other words we are back to the concept of Mutation.

You just said that sex can't do it alone it needs variations, which would mean Mutation.

So if it needs Mutation then we can conclude it needs CHANCE because Mutation depends on CHANCE as we both agreed upon.

That to me is circular reasoning. Mutation to Sex then Sex to Mutation. I hope you understand me.

 

Natural Selection can do nothing. It gives you no direction. It only tells us that the "fit" will survive. EVERYTHING is depended on the action of MUTATION. Natural Selection without Mutation cannot do ANYTHING evolutionary. But on the contarary Mutation can do MANY things without Natural Selection. Natural Selection is a theory talking only common sense, which is that the "fit" will survive, nothing else. This to me is not even a theory. Even a child can tell you that the "fit" will survive.

And on that previous post of mine. I wanted to share what I read. I didn't want any misunderstanding. I also said that that is all I know. So basically I just wanted to tell him what I know. Yeah I copied it but just so nothing "wrong" would come out of my mouth. As I said in my post that this IS what I read, and know. But sorry, for doing that. I see you said that. But I just wanted to present the quotes. As you can see that most of the post is quotes, and the rest is really what I personally wrote, except two sentences.

 

786: Why do you keep obsessing over the fact that mutations occur by chance? I really don’t understand your point. Yes, it is unlikely that any given organism will experience a beneficial mutation – but in a large population that’s constantly reproducing, it’s practically inevitable that eventually an organism will undergo a beneficial mutation that makes it more likely to survive. What’s the problem?

 

Fossil record, that crap, nothing bets pure genetic relations. The only way it could not be evolution is if a very tricky god made it look like all creatures were related and seemed to descend from common ancestors all the way down to the molecular level.

 

Funny. You believe in the Theory of Evolution which is science, then you deny Paleontalogy which is also Science. Interesting!