Since mutations are required for evolution to work....?

Question

Mutations are required for evolution to work....isn't there a problem with the evolution theory since the passing of mutations to succuessive generations has only been shown to happen in a few bacteria? Mutations aren't inherited by offspring.

I'm talking about macro evolution here.

Answer 1

YES.. THERE IS A PROBLEM..
THERE ARE SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH EVOLUTION IT'S SICK!

http://www.leestrobel.com/videos/Creator/strobelT1001.htm

WATCH THIS...

Answer 2

That is such an old boring creationist question that has been answered repeatedly. Why do you people keep asking the same questions? It is a vast over simplification and basic misunderstanding of the role of mutations in evolutionary theory, and also just generally incorrect in several of your assumprions. Try reading "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It goes into it in great detail. Or have a look at this topic on the attached links. The problem is that will take actual effort on your part and it is much easier to believe a falsehood on faith then to do the hard brain work and discover the truth.

Answer 3

The web site link below discusses a classic example of mutation and natural selection, in the peppered moth of England. A mutation (wing color) allowed for only a small percentage of moths to have dark wings, the rest being white. This trait was inherited. Due to pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, the white moths were more visible to predators, as they no longer blended in nicely with the trees on which they hung out. As a result, the modern population of these moths is more shifted towards the dark wing variety. This mutation probably wouldn't have made much of a difference otherwise, but a change in the environment made it easier for one type of moth to survive than the other. And that is all natural selection is about. Not that there are big, monumental changes in genome which miraculously spring forth new species, but that small gradual changes sometimes change things, when these changes prove advantageous. Please get your facts correct. Better yet, please provide a citation for your "facts" so we can see what kind of nutters are providing you your information.

Answer 4

Does God Exist?
RomansSome Scientists Answer
PHYSICS professor Ulrich J. Becker, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated when commenting on the existence of God: "How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any compelling answer ever given."
Did this contradict his scientific views? The professor's thought-provoking answer was, "If you discovered how one wheel in the 'clock' turns—you may speculate how the rest move, but you are not entitled to call this scientific and better leave alone the question of who wound up the spring."
Contrary to the opinion of some, many respected men of science do not rule out the idea of there being a God—a Great Mastermind behind the creation of the universe and man.
Consider two more examples on this point. When mathematics professor John E. Fornaess, of Princeton University, was asked for his thoughts on the existence of God, he replied: "I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to superclusters of galaxies."
Physics professor Henry Margenau, of Yale University, said that he was convinced that the laws of nature were created by God, adding: "God created the universe out of nothing in an act which also brought time into existence." He then noted that in the book The Mystery of Life's Origin, three scientists explain that a Creator is a plausible explanation for life's origin. Supporting this view, astronomer Fred Hoyle has stated that believing the first cell originated by chance is like believing that a tornado ripping through a junkyard full of Boeing 747 airplane parts dismembered and in disarray could produce a 747.
To these answers can be added the words of the Bible writer Paul: "[God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his Godship

Answer 5

Do you mean to say that you are identical to your parents? Or are you a mutation of them? Gotta pick one, and unless you have your Dad's fingerprints and DNA, you are a mutation.

The tendency to have a "mutation" is indeed inherited. Haven't you heard of diseases that are unique (or at least prevalent) in certain ethnic races (i.e. Tay sachs)? Or on a lesser note, blonde hair or blue eyes? Your hair color, skin color, and other mutations are successive from your parents. Does everyone in the world have the same hair color, etc., as you do (aka your theory of no mutations) or did you inherit that from a certain gene pool (aka successive mutation)?

Combine this with survival of the fittest, where generally persons with a more suitable "mutation" for their environment will be more likely to survive long enough to pro-create. And you got yourself evolution. Most of the minor physical differences in the current ethnic groups you see are a result of evolution as a result of environmental conditions.

Answer 6

No no no no no-- that's not the logic. A mutation is neither good nor bad by itself. The effect it has on the species either helps or hinders the species in its survival. If it hurts it-- it dies off and the mutation is no longer passed on. If it helps, the species survives and passes the mutation to its offspring which in turn have a better chance at survival.

Answer 7

WRONG!!!! What's the average lifespan today? What was it 500 years ago? What is average height? Again, what was it 500 years ago? How do you get red hair (naturally)? Mutations do not have to be like in X-Men. Mutations are usually small changes that might help a species thrive. Dark skin and body hair are examples, as is a resistance to alcohol.

Answer 8

evolutionists require mutations that increase information, so far mutations just rearrange or delete information, which is still very problematic

an example: there are many many breeds of dogs, but they still are all dogs! one might have three legs, or even five legs, but that hinders the animal, and the animal's DNA already had the information for how to make a leg. there was no gain in information.

Mutations do occur in species, but they involve rearranging or decreasing in information!! no new information is added to the genome. There is observable evidence for horizontal evolution (natural selection). But there is no observable evidence for vertical evolution (dog turns into bear).

Answer 9

But those few bacteria are living things...apparently it occurred in them. Therefor it can happen. So the question is...?

The bird flu is a good example in which it may mutate into a form that can easily affect humans. Viruses like that evolve and they evolve fast, much faster then other organisms, like us. Their changes are how they survive, and they have to evolve and change fast to deal with the medicines we create to fight them. And if it happens in these things, then clearly evolution can occur.

Answer 10

I am also confused by the fact that we can produce skeletons of whales when they had legs, but we cannot produce any bones from the whales that have evolved through the years to now. Any animal that scientists may say evolved is curiously missing millions of years of skeletal data to actually show the process. The theory of evolution is flawed no doubt, but the idea of life changing to adapt to new surroundings is not so far-fetched I believe.

Answer 11

Evolutionary theory is still just that: A THEORY.
That means although there is some evidence pointing toward evolution as a biological event/norm, there are still more questions (such as yours) than there are answers.

The theory is important in terms of understanding our development, and every theory leads to discovery. What we need to be prepared for is that THE TRUTH or the next THEORY, may be as shocking/unbelievable to us as Darwin's theory was when it was published.