The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

If this actually meant something, then it would be wrong. But the fact that you are speaking in a jargon apparently of your own invention has prevented you from making the mistake that you're trying to make.Would you like to try again? You'll need a beginner's book on genetics, preferably one with chewable pages, and a dictionary of the English language.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And vice versa, no one has ever said that deleterious mutations don't outnumber beneficial mutations, you are the one consistently claiming that beneficial mutations don't even really exist.TTFN,WK

Normal trait? So ... any beneficial or neutral mutation, such as the ones that are constantly being observed?

This is the post you said hadn't been addressed. Based on a totally fantasy scenario you want me to accept that mutations are possible?

They aren't exactly "beneficial" when you take a look at them, they're just odd genetic events, but in any case evolution needs thousands upon thousands if its claim that all the alleles that now function normally in producing traits derived from mutations and that this process is continuing. There is no evidence for this WHATEVER.

You need to bear in mind that you could easily have a beneficial mutation, or a neutral one given the redundancy in many gene networks, which is the result of a 'dead' gene, i.e. a mutation which obliterates a transcriptional start site or radically truncates the transcript so the protein product no longer functions.TTFN,WK

Yeah, "beneficial" by the back door as it were, nothing like the kinds of alleles that already exist in all species that produce all the variations. You're describing what is essentially a disease process and assuming it's something normal. That's what I encountered in Bluejay's descriptions also. Just shows to me that evolution is in the business of making up loads of BS.

What is a 'normal' trait?You are using subjective anthropomorphic terms i.e. "normal" to describe biological functions. What standard are using this "normal"/"abnormal" from? In other words, "normal" based on what?As far as disease. Most organisms have some type of reoccurring diseases (disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors). They just differ in severity.So in other words, you would have to say the vast majority of organisms (except maybe those kept in very sterile conditions with very little disease agents or mutational factors) are abnormal because they are diseased. A dead gene is just an inactive or non-functioning gene. It may or may not be harmful to the organism. In many cases they are neutral and have no affect on the organism as is the case with most mutations in the genome. Dead gene does not equal dead organism.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Normal based on what we actually see in nature that is the product of genetic variation that couldn't possibly be the result of the kinds of mutations that are observed and described. The mutations are all destructive, all mistakes, all abnormal with respect to what has to be the normal function of the genetic system if living things could ever existed at all. And it's only because you don't have any other source of alleles to keep evolution running that you try to make so much out of these deformed genetic events. .And your point is? These are disease processes, and mutations produce thousands of diseases, yet it is claimed / assumed that somehow evolution chugs along on stuff that maims and sickens. Really, it's DESPITE the evidence that this is ALL mutations do that evolutionists nevertheless talk about all life having developed from this EVIDENTLY basically deforming process that only occasionally produces some kind of fluke that you all pounce on as if it proved your fantasy about how it fuels evolution. Disease is an interference with normal. There's plenty of both in reality, but to any sane mind there is no problem telling the difference. But evolutionists try to blur the two and claim that a process -- mutations -- that is ONLY actually KNOWN to produce genetic deformities -- could actually produce normal healthy life. All based on assumption. The evidence is against such a claim in the thousands upon thousands. A dead gene is evidence of a disease process in the organism. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I started a thread a while back asking if anyone had ever observed the beneficial conversion of a gene to a pseudogene, and I'm still interested. The experiment shouldn't be too difficult --- just provide a model organism with a constant supply of something that the "wild" organism expends energy and nutrients to make.

Wait ... you still don't even understand that mutations exist?Sheesh. It's pathetic.Perhaps you should go away and (I may have said this before) learn some frickin' genetics.

Well that is your repeated assertion, but since you repudiate the evolutionary concept of beneficial, a mutation which confers upon its posessor an increase in evolutionary fitness in terms of reproductive success, and refuse to provide your own definition of beneficial ,beyond that you will know it when you see it, there isn't really any way to determine whether this is true or not.It certainly isn't true going by the scientific definition, but going by the 'Faith' 'definition' it will probably always be true since you are the only arbiter of what constitutes a beneficial mutation in that respect and you wont let the rest of us know what your criteria are.TTFN,WK

... so, a mutation that doesn't actually produce anything novel?You are funny.Of course, one could supply you with instances ... but how would they be relevant to the production of evolutionary novelty?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

BENEFICIAL for cripes' sake. Get the CONTEXT.

Oh it produces NOVEL stuff, sick novel stuff plus miles of dead DNA.