The Deluge

[I Am The Scum]

The trouble, in the end that I have with mutations is this. If evolution is change and mutations are the basis of it then why is it that mutations can not produce anything new?

I have no idea what this question means. Can you elaborate?

 

[edge]

Please edge, you have no idea of what you're talking about. There was no flood, there is no evidence of it.

Paul

That's all you can come up with?

 

[Nonpareil]

That's all you can come up with?

That's all that needs to be said.

 

[Region Rat]

That's all you can come up with?

There's really not anything more to it than that.

 

[lionking]

How did 29,000 year old rock art survive a world-wide deluge?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/02/09/1040949.htm

 

[edge]

Yes.


Well, sure. What would you expect them to do, float?

Yep,

The average continent is made up primarily of limestone, granite, or eroded granitic byproducts such as shale, siltstone, and sandstone, as well as metamorphics like slate, schist, and gneiss. However, most continents also have substantial amounts of andesite and basalt added in, from a past history of various volcanic events. The addition of these denser materials raises the average specific gravity for continental material to around 2.7. SiMa (from Silicon/Magnesium - its principal elements) is the material of the Earth's mantle - the 'fluid' in which continents are floating. To all appearances, this material is solid rock, but under the extreme pressure and temperature to which it is subjected, it actually flows like a liquid, albeit very slowly. Its specific gravity of 3.3 is high enough to insure that continents cannot sink.

Given these figures, it should be possible to calculate the thickness of an average continent. Hypothesize a continent that is absolutely flat and whose surface is exactly at sea level. (Substantial portions of Australia and parts of the Canadian shield come very close to this description.) The effective 'surface' of the SiMa fluid is actually the floor of the oceans, averaging approximately 13,000' (~4 km) below sea level. The weight of 13,000' of ocean water pressing down on the mantle wherever continents are not present complicates the formula somewhat. It becomes easier to think in terms of pressures, rather than the percentage of floating object that are submerged in the fluid.

To refer back to the example in Section 1, if a rectangular block of wood 10" thick, having a specific gravity of 0.7, is floating in water having a specific gravity of 1.0, 70% or 7" of the block will be submerged and 3" will be above the surface. In terms of pressures, the 3" above water is pushing down with a force proportional to 3" times its specific gravity (0.7), while the submerged 7" are being pushed up by water pressure with a force proportional to 7" times the difference in specific gravity between the water and the wood (1.0 - 0.7). Thus:

3" x 0.7 = 7" x 0.3

http://webspinners.com/dlblanc/tectonic/floating.php
Taken from there>


Can't sink or can they? Can there be a variation?
Earth crust displacement comes to mind also.

 

[Paulhoff]

That's all you can come up with?

Where is your dating?

Paul

 

[Foster Zygote]

Oops

 

[Foster Zygote]

They must have been some pretty hot chicks. Loose, too.

Twenty hot MILFs. Fifty 8th grade boys. No rules.

 

[temporalillusion]

Mutations are thought to occur in the normal process of cell reproduction, if I am not mistaken, but experiments have shown that they also can be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. And how often do they happen? The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often.

You misunderstand evolution, right from step one.

Reproduction of genetic material in a cell is remarkably consistent, if it wasn't life wouldn't be possible. But it isn't perfect.

Where your first misunderstanding is you talk about the number of cells that divide in a living thing. That's irrelevant with respect to evolution. If a skin cell divides with an error or gets hit by a cosmic ray that has no impact on passing on genetic code.

Think about it, where does the genetic code for a new person come from? From the sex cells of the parents. So only mutations in the genetic code in a sex cell get passed on.

Now creation of sex cells is also extremely consistent, but also not perfect. Remember there are 3 billion base pairs.

How does that work out? There are in the range of 150 or 200 mutations in every single generation of humans. You have 150 mutations in the code you got from your parents. Most are neutral, either in function or occurring in areas of junk DNA.

From my perspective it is generally ... well actually overwhelmingly thought that, as Sagan said: "Most of them are harmful or lethal and Koller: "The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful."

Well if most were harmful, we'd all be dead within a few hundred generations.

The first quote is from a popular book on the universe, not a book about biology so it isn't authoritative.

Your second quote is from a Watchtower tract for kids. The only places I could find the quote were on creationist sites, one referenced an actual paper written in 1971 which I couldn't find the text for.

So yeah, your quotes aren't very good.

Most mutations are damaging to the organism which seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution.

You are right if it were true that most mutations were damaging. But it isn't.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297

This is such a basic creationist claim that has been refuted almost no creationists use it anymore, you might want to learn about what you are arguing against first.

Much of the rest of your post is based on you getting that one thing wrong, so it's all wrong.

The trouble, in the end that I have with mutations is this. If evolution is change and mutations are the basis of it then why is it that mutations can not produce anything new?

They can and do. It has been observed in real time in the lab; organisms have evolved through mutations the ability to metabolize a completely new food source for example, or a single celled organism evolving into a multi-celled organism.

Gene duplication has been observed and is a source of brand new genetic material, there are others as well.

That's a pretty basic misunderstanding of genetics.

The World Book Encyclopedia: "A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water."

But ... it couldn't produce anything new ... it changed but that was it's demise.

It didn't produce anything new that time, but just because you try and get a hole in one at golf once and don't get it doesn't mean no one ever will.

Again ... mutations are increasingly science fiction ... of speculations which lead to nowhere.

Still repeating the same mistake?

In the Book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: "After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/List_o...ity#The_author_of_Darwin_Retried_on_mutations

Dishonesty by misrepresenting quotes (even if unintentional) is unbecoming.

This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution."

Only if you don't understand evolution or genetics.

The same could be said of some germs which have proved resistant to antibiotics. The hardier germs are still the same, not evolving at all into anything else. Even this is not likely evolution through mutations, but simply a case where some germs were immune to begin with. Some germs having been killed off by drugs and the immune ones multiplied and became dominant.

Lol this is hilarious.

Do you realize that you say "this is not likely evolution through mutations", but then explain exactly how it IS evolution?

"Some germs having been killed off by drugs and the immune ones multiplied and became dominant."

See, you've described evolution without even knowing it, battling some made up cartoon version of evolution you've got with something you reasoned out, which just happens to be what evolution REALLY is.

Epic.

So tell me, what causes the variation among the population? Why are some individuals more resistant than others? If every individual had the exact same genetic code they would all have the same resistance.

The rest of your post is full of similar mistakes, inaccuracies, and misrepresentations, but I'm tired of going through it.

Honestly, read Finding Darwin's God by Ken Miller. He's a believer. You may not agree with his conclusions, but at least you'll understand evolution and won't make such basic mistakes, it really does harm your credibility.

See? That's how it is done. That is how you refute something. Lets see you do that with the Bible, wise guy.

Which Bible? There's over 5700 fragments of the NT in the original Greek that we have recovered, and what's written on any fragment disagrees with any other fragment.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Which Bible? There's over 5700 fragments of the NT in the original Greek that we have recovered, and what's written on any fragment agrees with any other fragment.

There are more textual variations in those surviving witnesses than there are words in the New Testament. Most of the discrepancies are simple scribal errors, but there are many significant differences, caused by error and deliberate alteration, that change the meaning of the text.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I've got 50 Biblically illiterate weekend scientists telling me that the flood couldn't have happened and, look! I gave you the floor. What do I get? A couple of good posts with good questions a handful of wikipedia links, some graphs you snagged of the web and baseless denials with no reason or rhyme. You think I haven't been down that road before? I've noticed that when I do challenge you people, with your offhanded smart ass remarks about radio carbon dating and I put you to the test all I get is the sound of the ocean.

Like when you offer debunked apologetic claims attempting to reconcile the contradictory genealogies presented by the authors of Matthew and Luke? Or when you are asked how the writing of Matthew and Luke can predate Mark when they both quote extensively from Mark? Or when you are shown verses from Genesis contradicting your claim about the survival of certain organisms outside of he ark?

You may be well versed in your own mythical fantasy, but that doesn't mean that those who reject those fantasies are ignorant of the Bible.

 

[I Ratant]

See?! Thats what you clever "science" guys are for. Isn't this great fun?

.
Golllllllleeeeeeeeeee!
Here we are discussing the menagerie of mythical beasts, and you get yer knickers in a twist over four of them.
We haven't even covered orcs and balrogs and ents, much less thoats and sleens, or krakens.
Lots of'em in the literature.

 

[Simon39759]

I've got 50 Biblically illiterate weekend scientists telling me that the flood couldn't have happened and, look! I gave you the floor. What do I get? A couple of good posts with good questions a handful of wikipedia links, some graphs you snagged of the web and baseless denials with no reason or rhyme. You think I haven't been down that road before? I've noticed that when I do challenge you people, with your offhanded smart ass remarks about radio carbon dating and I put you to the test all I get is the sound of the ocean.

What more do you want?
People got you a few dozens very good reasons why the flood does not make sense within the framework of known scientific facts.
People rightly pointed to you the absence of the evidences one would expect from a global flood and the absence of any mechanism from this flood to take place (and for the water to retire afterward).

You can say you are not convinced but, considering you have not addressed any of these points, your lack of conviction seem more disingenuous than anything.

You want science? Have at it. Here is my science. Its old but refute it anyway without wikipedia and with reason.

What do you have against Wikipedia?

I chose to start at Mutations because from my understanding mutations are the alleged basis of evolution, but at the same time, it seems to me, the least likely to have substance. Steven Stanley called mutations "the raw materials" for evolution. Geneticist Peo Koller said they "are necessary for evolutionary progress." Robert Jastrow stressed the importance of "a slow accumulation of favorable mutations." Carl Sagan said: "Mutations - sudden changes in heredity - breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species."

So far, so good, let's hear it.

The Punctuated Equilibrium​

In Science Digest John Gliedman stated: "Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires." But British zoologist Colin Patterson observed: "Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes."

Hurm; that quote is from 1982, at the dawn of molecular biology. We have made huge progress since and we know much more about these regulatory genes.

Mutations are thought to occur in the normal process of cell reproduction, if I am not mistaken, but experiments have shown that they also can be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. And how often do they happen? The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often. As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing "of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents."

Mutations are known to occur, you mean.
Sure, they are rare, one in about 50 millions. That's rare.
But, considering a human genome of 3 billions base pair; it is estimated that every cell replication will generate about 120 new mutations.

From my perspective it is generally ... well actually overwhelmingly thought that, as Sagan said: "Most of them are harmful or lethal and Koller: "The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful."

In reality, the vast, vast majority of mutations have no effect one way or the other. The majority of the rest only have little effect one way or the other.

With the Bible, for me and my studies, it has always been etched in stone, if you like. A problem in my understanding could be investigated, usually a simple excercise.

That's... not really relevant, now, is it?

Most mutations are damaging to the organism which seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.

Or... maybe, they only put the extreme cases in the books? You know, the one you can notice on a picture (and, in reality, odds are limited that the cases in question are actual mutants, most likely, whatever 'freakishness and monstrosity', to use your how so sensitive term, was inherited rather than the direct product of a mutation.

Anyway, considering what we have said earlier about the mutation rate being much more common than you assume, we know that everybody carries a large number of mutations. Yep, we are all mutants.

G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: "After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated."

This could indicate to me that mutations are useless - harmful. Or that they are as was what I learned in 'school,' the basis for evolution. In that they are eliminated.

Yes; that'd means that... If it were true.
Stebbins was much to smart and knowledgeable on the subject to have said that. And, really, if it was his understanding, one would imagine he would have given up on the subject rather than dedicate his life to it, or, are the very least, not actively fought "scientific" creationism?
Most likely is that this quote (that I can only find repeated on creationist websites) was quote-mined. Maybe he was talking about one particular mutations (certainly some can be lethal and eliminated in a few generations). But certainly not about all mutations in general as the quote would suggest. Stebbins knew better than that.

The problem I have with that is that if they are eliminated why would they have evolved through mutations in the first place? I could think along the lines that they need to be eliminated.

They need to be eliminated? What a strange terminology...

In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov wrote: "Most mutations are for the worse . . . . In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward."

As said, it's not really accurate, most mutations have no effects. But, a part from that he is right: 'most of the mutations [that have a discernable pehnotypical effect] are for the worst'.

And that is the reason why many organisms are diploid. They have two sets of 'instruction' so that in the case of a deficient mutation in a gene, the other copy can serve as a back up.

And the other hand, positive mutations accumulate in the population generation after generation and soon become dominant.

Geneticist Dobzhansky once said: "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better."

Yes again, and this is why despite mutations being common at the individual level, and positive mutations being spread quickly, evolution is still a slow process...

The trouble, in the end that I have with mutations is this. If evolution is change and mutations are the basis of it then why is it that mutations can not produce anything new?

But, they do, from an information theory point of view, any mutation create information...

The World Book Encyclopedia: "A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water."

But ... it couldn't produce anything new ... it changed but that was it's demise.

Absorbing more water was its demise? Is the plant Irish? Is it some kind of goddamn mogwai? One of Night Shyamalan's imbecilic aliens?

Here I see the flaw of the basis of evolution. It provides a brief window of speculation and study but beyond that it is a stagnant pool. Evolution could only wind itself out in a series of mishaps. Mishapen accidents leading nowhere.

Well... we sure are glad from this insight...

Drosophila melanogaster​

Dobzhansky: "The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."

The actual quote seems to be: variety of mechanisms but these mechanisms do not, generally, interfere with the information contained on the molecule.
To use a classic metaphor, they repair the binding of the book, look through the other copy of the book if some pages are missing, but they do not check the information within the book itself...

In the Book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: "After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."

Seems like Goldschmidt never actually said that.
But really, let's think about it for a minute. Even if we start with the very, very conservative idea of one mutation accumulating per generation (a far cry below the 120 per cells, right?), a thousand mutations would mean a new species every thousand generations...
So... yeah; evolution was never supposed to work that fast...

The Peppered Moth​

The International Wildlife Encyclopedia: "This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man. After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: "Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one." The peppered moth.

There were two forms of the peppered moth. A light and a dark. The lighter type blended into the lighter colored trunks of the trees which it hung to. It thrived while the darker didn't. Then, when industrial pollution caused the trunks of those trees to darken the role of survival switched, naturally to the darker.

Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type. The question was, of course, was the peppered moth evolving into something new? No. The English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as "notorious . . . . This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution."

Why is it irrelevant? It is a wonderful example of evolution!
It's also a complete disproof of all your previous paragraphs where you asserted that mutations were rare, always detrimental, corrected and squeeze out of populations.
Here we have one mutations that had a positive effect, was not squeezed out but, on the contrary, became the dominant form of the gene!
Exactly what you said several times would never happen!

The same could be said of some germs

We call them bacteria.

which have proved resistant to antibiotics. The hardier germs are still the same, not evolving at all into anything else. Even this is not likely evolution through mutations, but simply a case where some germs were immune to begin with. Some germs having been killed off by drugs and the immune ones multiplied and became dominant. Evolution From Space said: "We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes."

So, evolution does not work anymore? I thought it worked for moths?
Also: read!.

Insects being immune to poisons - is a case of some poisons being effective and others not, that is being effective on some insects and other insects it is ineffective. The ones having been killed could not develop a resistance since they were dead. Those living were immune from the start, a genetic factor which is selective but not demonstrating change or evolution of the insect itself or in effect any evolution other than some insects were dead and others were not. It doesn't change anything on a minimal scale as evolution would suppose.

Yes... They were immune from the start because of a mutation. Environmental pressure made this mutant variant of whatever gene the dominant one.
Evolution happen at the population level, not at the individual level.
Let's repeat that: Population evolve; individuals do not.

Molecules to Living Cells said: "The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction." Symbiosis in Cell Evolution said: "All life . . . reproduces with incredible fidelity." Scientific American said: "Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation."

Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs, mutations cannot account for overall evolution - why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.

Ha... The micro-macro evolution ********. The creationist favourite moving of the goalposts since the rise of molecular biology...

But, we already agreed that evolution could change the colour of a population of moth, right? And remarkably fast too.
Similarly, it can certainly widen their wings or lengthen their legs, no?
So, what amount of change must accumulate before a moth is no longer a moth?
The fact is; this moth population did take one step away from what moth were 'supposed' to be like. If it took this small step, surely it can take another step, right? And another after that? How many steps, how many incremental changes after we decide it no longer fits the definition of a moth?
Really, it is now your burden of proof to why thousands upon thousands of small incrementing changes could not be accumulate generations after generations, step after step.

By making the micro-macro evolution distinction, you are now in the position of having to prove that, yes, one can put a step in front of the other and cross the room, but certainly, a similar process could not explain a hitchhiker slowly backpacking across the country...


In fact, the commonest definition of a specie is a population of individuals able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
It is possible for just one mutation, therefore, to produce a whole new species. Indeed, emergence of new species is almost a mundane affair at this point and one has to look a bit more deeply to search for the coolest example such as Helacyton gartleri or Sticker's sarcoma.

Interpretation​

Darwin's observations of the finch on the Galapagos Islands operated upon the premise that they were the same type as those which had apparently migrated from South America, but there were curious differences in those which Darwin observed - the shape of their beaks, for example. This, he interpreted as evolution.

The reason that I side with the Bible over evolution, then, as far as mutations go, is a matter of a flawed observation based upon speculation. The finch that Darwin observed is a finch. It will never be anything else.

It was 200 years ago. It is something else now: a dead finch.

A black person, a red person, a yellow person, a white person, a brown person, a person with a big nose and a person with a small nose or any variation of person or finch never evolves beyond what a finch or a person is.

A moth becomes a butterfly, a child becomes an adult. This is, in effect an evolution ... a change ... but not a change which evolves beyond what the Bible speaks of in the Genesis account.

Population. Individual. Former evolve; later do not.
Also; what is a goat but a sheep with caprine pattern baldness?

See? That's how it is done. That is how you refute something. Lets see you do that with the Bible, wise guy.

You mean; by greatly misunderstanding the subject you pretend to be lecturing about to the point of having virtually no clue about it?

Sure: 'If Jehovah wanted everybody to eat marshmallows; why did he close the marshmallow fountain in the garden of Eden?'.


Seriously; answering your long and poorly reasoned post, it seems like most of the example you are contained with this one document.
It seems to me that, when unable to provide any support for the deluge, you decided to throw a red herring at us and, while you first were honest about your lack of understanding and interest for science, you then repackaged some poorly reasoned creationist garbage (after attributing it to yourself in a rather dishonest display).



That's rather annoying, to be honest, it makes baby talking merkat to want and add you to the list of the enemies he wants to crush:

 

[PixyMisa]

This is exactly what they do they float, read up.

On water? What are they made out of, witches?

 

[PixyMisa]

One of my buddies over at the Rational Response Squad was reading this thread and said it was pretty brutal. That I looked like an idiot because I didn't have any "science under my belt." That I should stick to what I know, the Bible, so before I kickstart this thing and get my ass kicked by science perhaps I should warm up with a Bible question.

Lousy advice. Instead you should learn some science.

The Hebrew word nephilim, like the word satan, had another meaning in addition to being applied to the Nephilim or Satan the Devil. Nephilim means "Fellers." Those who cause others to fall down. Nephal means to fall.

The account of Numbers 13:31-33 seems to have been an apparent attempt to strike fear into the Israelites by using the term Nephilim, probably out of fear. See Numbers 14:36-37.

Though the nephilim did perish the angels who fathered them didn't. See Jude 6 / 1 Peter 3:19-20 / 2 Peter 2:4 / 1 Corinthians 6:3 / Ephesians 6:12.

In Greek mythology there are some very similar stories of the Nephilim of Genesis 6:1-4. [ETA - most likely influenced by stories that were enhanced from the scattering at Babel. Sounds like the God Emperor Leto Atreides?]

That's nice. So why is there no evidence whatsoever for this global flood of yours, where there is a great deal of evidence for a global event 15,000 times older than that?

 

[PixyMisa]

EDIT: And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you need to find a hobby. Otherwise you end up like me; doing point-by-point refutations of stuff like this.

We do appreciate it, though.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

For dave.
Since you've said you have had no interest in science and since you seem to not understand genetics, a small explanation to hopefully make the points about neutral mutations mentioned in several of the excellent posts above.

First, the DNA that codes for the functional proteins.
Proteins are made up out of amino acids. There are 22 standard amino acids, which need to be coded for by DNA. DNA only has 4 nucleotides, A,C,G and T. Given that number each amino acid needs to be coded for by at least 3 DNA nucleotides in order to give enough space.
The amino acid methonine is coded for by the nucleotides ATG for instance.
However since there are 64 possible combinations of 3*4 letters a lot of amino acids are coded for by multiple combinations. Valine for instance is coded for by GT(A/C/G/T). A mutation in the 3'd position therefore has no effect at all, but is still considered a mutation. Given the known distribution of the code, about 1/4th of all mutations in coding sequence have no effect whatsoever. The way proteins are built up means that the majority of mutations that do alter the amino acid have limited or no effect either, but to fully explain that actually requires a course in genetics and protein structure.

Now a large part of your DNA does not code for proteins, but rather contains information involved in DNA maintenance, the structures needed for protein expression regulation and a host of other things. In the old days, when modern genetics began this was called 'junk DNA' as these functions were unknown, but that term has been dropped in the mid nineties as knowledge progressed. However these regions are far more flexible in what exact nucleotides form them, and thus are even less susceptible to mutations. They occur, but they just don't noticeably affect the function except in rare occasions.

However, with modern sequencing techniques we CAN track all these silent (non-detrimental) mutations. And since we have genetic material of several generations of humans we have a rough estimate of how quickly they accumulate.


In my original question I mentioned mitochondrial DNA, which is used as a marker precisely because it is so well maintained that it actually gains less random mutation than expected by chance. And tracing that back using our current knowledge gives several hundred last common human female ancestors in Africa about 100.000 years ago. Not about 3-4 5000 years ago.
Similar traces (without the bottleneck, other species were better at living than our ancestors) can be made for every known species and nothing indicates a mass extinction event in recent history.

Of course you can claim god made it all look like that, but then so could Zeus, Allah, the Buddha and Xenu.

 

[Unlike a Bull]

They can and do. It has been observed in real time in the lab; organisms have evolved through mutations the ability to metabolize a completely new food source for example, or a single celled organism evolving into a multi-celled organism.

Do you have a link for the single celled organism evolving into a multi-cellular organism being observed in the lab? I would like to read about that.

 

[Paulhoff]

Do you have a link for the single celled organism evolving into a multi-cellular organism being observed in the lab? I would like to read about that.

Do you have a few billion years to wait, and a test tube the size of the earth.

Paul