Beneficial Mutations Made Simple

It is funny to see evolutionists talking about mutations and giving them great credits. All I saw in these posts (the ones that defend mutations and evolution) is just imaginary tales of a mutation having a benifit. This is because that is what evolution is all about: if your in the mood, make up a scenario and publish it and claim it to be "scientific". All these tales of mutations having benifit are imaginary and with no logic or evidence.Lets look at the DNA, it is a very complex structure that functions almost perfectly on its own, and a mutation is just an accident that damages the DNA and harms the organism. What good may come from this unconsious and random intervention in the complex system of the DNA? Some of you go as far as to claim that mutations can be useful if you use them well. But, has anybody observed a benefitial mutation that accounts for evolution of defferent species? NO.A mutation is like an earthquake that hits a building. Believing in benefitial mutations is like believing that an earthquake can improve a building and not damage it. What good might come from cancer, down syndrome, albinism, fibrosis, and other mutations. Maybe you sould have one of these mutations and then see if you can make advantage out of them.In short, a benifit from a mutation is just an evolutionary fantasy tale. Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

This "Rubbish" has more logic than the so called "benifitial mutations". What do you mean uninformed? I have read the previous posts and all I found is evolutionary "Rubbish".

Look it is simple and doesnt need copying and pasting complicated stuff from athiest biased websites. We all know that life forms are so diverse that there are species that have not been unidentified yet. So, in order for mutations to account for all this diversity, these benifitial mutations have to be very abundant in nature and should be observed very frequently now. If there is one example about a benifitail mutation (like the haemoglobin stuff which I dont realy understand how it is related to evolution)that is not enough to be evidence for evolution.YOu all know the great rarity of benefitail mutations but still desperately believe in them because they are vital for the evolutionary imaginary scenarios.In addition, the DNA with all the enzyemes and proteins and other stuff and how they work together is a very complex system by itself and mutations are just random intervention (or accidents) in this highly ordered system. Go drive your car and make an accident, lets see if this accident can improve your car.But sadly enough, since you are an evolutionists who believed in benifitial mutations you should also believe that accidents improve cars. And if you fail to see the complexity in the DNA and the other systems that work around it, then I cant say anything to you but to see and eye doctor.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

As rare as imposible!All these exiplanations about how mutations can aid in evolution are in fact based more on imagination than on evidince. This is very clear from the previous posts.All it takes to understand this is the analygies about the car accidents and the earthquakes to show you the imposibility of benefitial mutatioins. Thats why evolutionists realize this but they, as usual, refreshed their imagination to design new ways of how mutations can aid in evolution.

Benifitial mutations are not as rare as functional CPUs bucause these are mush more frequent compared to benifitial mutations.If you want to make an analogy, than compare the impossibility of benifitail mutations to be as impossible as random waves on the beach constructing a sand castle.

Sure! if you like 1 in 1000000000 than know this:Is it more logical to you to desperately believe in chance as low as this rathar than accepting creation and call this logical?

There is no need for mathematical calculations. They are usual works of evolutionists where they dive in details that are no longer related to evolution.There is one thing you need to know: Even though non have obsereved benifitial mutations or species turn into other species, still, evolutionists desperately hope they do, otherwise if they dont then evolution is in trouble.Further calculations and estimations on benifitial mutations and species turning to other species are not necessary, because they dont realy prove the main point that we're missing: do they actually occur in the first place before we can even make any further studies on them? But unless one of these two is observed, than evolutionists should not claim any further that they do occur.

Ok then! go ahead show me what results you get to support evolution.By the way, in the end of the post are you suggesting that speciation has been observed?

In addition! I need to hear from you or anybody about how a fish can evolve into a reptile as suggested in the "transition from water to land" scenario.

You know that specaition is not just a change in color or in other observable trait. I mean as a species like a fish turning into a reptile.

Here is a perfect example of how evolutionists use only their imagination to explain evolutionary scenarios. Maybe you should puplish it and call it "scientific". Or it would be better if you turn it into one of those unrealistic Japanese animes. True but if you'r evolutionist you should beleive that it does. I'll show you why. Yes, but we're still humans and not new species. We all have similar human anatomies and overall chemical makeup. Even worst! evolutionists make up any number they see fit. It is still a fish that uses gills to breathe underwater and if it goes out on land it will die. They are still fish! And they still live underwater.You need to know this: In order for a fish to be able to live on land it will not be enough to adapt to saltier environment. The fish will need the following:1)A fully developed lung-based respirotary system just like any land animal.
2)Fish bodies are desinged to swim underwater. They would have to acquire new muscular and skeletal systems and new body anatomy to be able to move and live on land.
3)Fish would need to have a different type of skin and a heat resistant system to meet the wide change in temperature on land and to limit water loss from the body. A new body system in other words.
4)fish would need a new waste system based on kidneys just as any land organism. Because aquatic organisms deposit wastes by use of their aquatic environment. But on land its a different environment.As you can see, a fish will need to have all these systems and in a "fully developed state" to be able to live on land. A step by step evolution is not possible, because if one of these systems is absent or partailly developed (i.e. half a lung, or one leg) It will not be enough for the fish to live on land.If you believe in this scenario, you'll have to believe that all these systems emerged suddenly and in one fish as a result of chance mutation! Now Where is the logic in evolution. Mutations are not concious mechanisms that can create new perfectly functioning organs or body systems.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

OK Thanks!