Role of Mutations

If the voice box evolved using mutations would it not be reasonable to say that some humans would not have them? Just wondering why all humans have 'em? From a Biblical perspective that problem dissappears. Humans were created with the ability to speak. In fact all humans had the same language until the tower of Babel. In fact the use of mutations in evolution is unfounded because there has not yet been one positive mutation in the history of studying mutations. If you disagree try finding one. If you do come up with one I know exactly which one it will be. And it comes with a nasty side effect, so it doesnt really count as a positive mutation.

---

Matt G.

My bad..... Didn't state my phrase too well. In order to support evolution these mutations need to add information to genes. These mutations do not. You did teach me something, but not what you thought. Your right some mutations may be "beneficial". But they still cotradict evolution in that mutations steal genetic information; evolution requires the addition of information. http://www.answersingenesis.org/...ea/feedback/2003/0221.asp
Hemoglobin C Disease: Overview, Clinical Presentation, Laboratory Studies
urate oxidase pseudogenes: results in high uric acid levels: Patient Education on Blood, Urine, and Other Lab Tests - Testing.com
CCR5-delta-32 causes hepatitis C to be more deadlyQuote Coragyps: I've got news for you - in parts of Africa where malaria is endemic the increased resistance to malaria outweighs the downside of the mutation, so guess what?It's a positive mutation after all in the right environment.
END QUOTERight environment huh? That is evolution's greatest weakness you know. It is mathematically impossible for all the circumstances to happen right.

Mutations are not variation. They are changes in the genetic code.As for the probability its all done up already.http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/figures.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/monkeys.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i2/chance.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i1/skeptics.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter9.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.aspI suppose thats enough. Just remember though that all this probability stuff means nothing if you dont have anything to start with. i.e. Where did the original matter come from? You figure it out.

My bad on the misquote. Sorry for any confusion or annoyance this may have caused. Well MangyTiger, what you used as an example of a mutation is basic genetics. Hair length is something already determined by genes. If there is hair there are genes that govern the length. What you are promoting here is natural selection. And I agree with the outcome. Long hair wins in cold weather.Information is what is in the genes. AKA: DNA. As DNA is altered by mutations information is taken out or switched around in the DNA strand. The information is the code and the ability to read it. Which brings out another problem for evolution. The DNA is the code. DNA is also the code breaker. In other words DNA produces the material required to translate itself. A perfect balance extremely unlikely to occur in the chaotic environment evolutionists say caused it.Quote arachnophilia: Quote petvet2be:Mutations are not variation. They are changes in the genetic code. END QUOTEchange = variation.END QUOTEI permanently change my statement "Mutations are not variation. They are changes in the genetic code." to "Mutations are not variation. They are permanent changes in the genetic code." i.e. they cant be reversed.those links were supporting my "As for the probability its all done up already." statement.Quote arachnophilia: evolution is the study of life after it appeared on this planet. it has nothing to do with how it got there. END QUOTESo you are saying that this supposedly very scientific "theory" is not based on a foundation. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Of cource I believe in natural selection and variation. I'd be a fool not to. What I am saying is even with mutations every species produces more of its own kind. For example have you ever heard of a dog giving birth to anything other than a dog? Or a cat anything other than a cat? No you have not because it does not happen. Over the last several thousand years we should have at least seen one instance where one species gave rise to another. And as far as variation is concerned "purebred" animals hgave much less variation than their ancestors. Take dogs for example. Purebred dogs are prone to so many different problems from bones to organs. And purebreds only produce purebreds. You cannot take two poodles and breed them and their offspering to get a wolf. They have lost the original variation. While their ancestor which was probably very much like the typical wolf and had much variation.And your belief that I do not believe in science is rediculous and unfounded. As a verterinarian to be I deal with science everyday and the complexity demands intelligence not random chance. Order cannot come from disorder.... unless Someone had a hand in it. There are two choices God made it from nothing or it came from nothing all by itself and since something cant create itself.... I'll let you figure that part out. The Bible does not allow for millions of years. It does not work. You must use irrational reasoning (an oxymoron?) to place anything other than a 6 day creation in there. Dr. Richard Dawkins himself laughs at Christians who try to put evolution into the Bible. He wants no compromises either. As a side note AiG has movie called From a Frog to a Prince. Dr. Dawkins was interviewed in this movie and his reasoning almost had me convinced. I reccomend looking into it.Edited by PetVet2Be, : Stupid 'puter thinks its smarter than me and tryed posting before I was ready.

Yes the chance of "something" happening is 1. But because of all the different somethings happening the odds of that one "good" something happening is very unlikely. 2 makes it even worse.

AiG has the same foundation I do. A faith in the Bible and its author. The scientific journals you are talking about that you would use as referance have the same foundation you do. A faith in evolution.