Mutations

[axeplayer]

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?

Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed.

[jwu]

First off, plagiarism is bad. A google search of "Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced" gave me 52 hits from various websites.

These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action.

If chemical action includes copying inaccuracies, then yes.

Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations.

Or it adds new ones, inverts sequences, doubles sequences.

Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Which then results in the deleterious mutation being eliminated.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form.

Mutation alone indeed doesn't, but combined with selection it becomes a powerful design tool. Genetic algorithms have been used to design plane wings, and electrical circuits which outperform those hand crafted by humans.

The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

A gross generalization. Besides, why can it "only" be like that? That's an empty assertion and easily disproven.

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful.

An outright lie!
Anytime a bacterium becomes immune to antibiotics this is due to beneficial mutations.
Some other bacteria also have evolved the ability to digest nylon:
http://www.student.tue.nl/t/p.kolbeek/n ... nzymes.pdf

[LillSnopp]

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful.

This, I can prove is an incorrect statement.

HIV mutates into a superior virus of itself, constantly. The HIV virus, therefore, is a perfect example of something that evolves into something better.


Im sorry, but you will have a problem arguing against this.

[Jose]

axeplayer: please refrain from plagiarism. If you are going to copy and paste others' writing, cite the source.

You should know that many of these statements are flat-out wrong. There is simply too much evidence. We've heard many YECs claiming that "mutations are always bad" but it is extremely well known that this is not the case.

Do you look like everyone else in the world? No? Why not? It must be because your DNA sequence is slightly different. You have mutations relative to me, and I have mutations relative to you, and we both have mutations relative to George W Bush (thank god). According to your statements here, we are all dead.

[axeplayer]

axeplayer: please refrain from plagiarism. If you are going to copy and paste others' writing, cite the source.

You should know that many of these statements are flat-out wrong. There is simply too much evidence. We've heard many YECs claiming that "mutations are always bad" but it is extremely well known that this is not the case.

Do you look like everyone else in the world? No? Why not? It must be because your DNA sequence is slightly different. You have mutations relative to me, and I have mutations relative to you, and we both have mutations relative to George W Bush (thank god). According to your statements here, we are all dead.

Actually, mutations are pretty much never beneficial. The fact that we all look different isn't due to mutations among our personal genes in relation to others. Our bodies aren't made to have drastic genetic changes take place in them, which is why almost every mutation is harmful. And dont try to tell me that insects not being effected by insecticide is a beneficial mutation. There is no mutation involved in this. There are insects who are naturally immune to the insecticide, they survive, and pass on the gene to their offspring. There is no mutation. Just how some humans are immune to certain viruses/diseases. I, for example, have never gotten the flu in my entire life. This doesn't mean that I have a mutated gene.

[Jose]

Actually, mutations are pretty much never beneficial. The fact that we all look different isn't due to mutations among our personal genes in relation to others. Our bodies aren't made to have drastic genetic changes take place in them, which is why almost every mutation is harmful. And dont try to tell me that insects not being effected by insecticide is a beneficial mutation. There is no mutation involved in this. There are insects who are naturally immune to the insecticide, they survive, and pass on the gene to their offspring. There is no mutation. Just how some humans are immune to certain viruses/diseases. I, for example, have never gotten the flu in my entire life. This doesn't mean that I have a mutated gene.

I think we should discuss the nature of mutation. In your view,

• what is a mutation?
• How should we define the term, "mutation"?
• What causes mutations?
• How do mutations alter the characteristics of animals?
• What, in your opinion, is required to make a mutation "drastic" as opposed to "minor"?
• How are our bodies made, so that they can't have mutations take place in them?
• What would happen if a mutation did take place in a human?

I think that discussing these things is really important if we want to move beyond flinging assertions at each other. We need to be speaking a common language if we hope to communicate.

[Chem]

Axeplayer said:

Actually, mutations are pretty much never beneficial. The fact that we all look different isn't due to mutations among our personal genes in relation to others. Our bodies aren't made to have drastic genetic changes take place in them, which is why almost every mutation is harmful.

I think you should check your facts. You have at least 6000 different mutations (alterations) to your DNA compared to your parents. Most of these would be located in the junk DNA that has built up over time and through various differnt ancestral forms.

[micatala]

Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful.

It seems to me I read last year about a boy in Germany who, through a genetic mutation, was roughly twice as strong as other children his age. I will see if I can find a reference for this.

[Jose]

I think you should check your facts. You have at least 6000 different mutations (alterations) to your DNA compared to your parents. Most of these would be located in the junk DNA that has built up over time and through various differnt ancestral forms.

It may not be that many. The last estimate I heard was that mammals (including us) have a mutation rate of 1 mutation per billion base pairs per year. That works out to about 264 per person per generation. I'd interpret this to mean that all of us, axeplayer included, are likely to have around 264 mutations relative to our parents. Relative to others not in our immediate family, I wouldn't be surprised if the 6000 number is more like it. If you have a reference for the data behind the 6000, I'd like to look it up. Maybe the 264 has been updated.

[micatala]

Actually, mutations are pretty much never beneficial.

Here is the reference to the "German super-boy." See also here, and here.

Therefore, I think we can safely conclude beneficial mutations exist, even in humans. Yes, this is only one example, but it is a rather astounding one, and shows that your statement is false, even without other examples from the wider animal kingdom.