About Evolution....?

Question

I've been a Biology student. I know about comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and other things that may suggest evolution.
What I have a problem with, though, is the idea that multiple instances of random mutation played a part in the evolution of humans. Mutations are usually harmful. How is it that most of ours happened to be beneficial and, despite some flaws (such as the flaws in our skeleton which supposedly prove that natural selection is not perfect) we turned out okay. Wouldn't we have mutated something seriously debilitating by now that would have led to our extinction long ago?
Furthermore, I've been told that a single strand of RNA + lightning equaled life. I don't get it. Aside from that, in the 1950s, an experiment was done by Stanley Miller in which the Earth's atmosphere was recreated and electricity was added, leading to some carbon atoms (abiosynthesis). Later, that experiment was disproved. What's the current theory?
.....

That theory was disproved later on. What is the current theory out? And how can a series of random mutations that would be more likely to kill us off actually advance us.
Honest, serious answers, please. Sarcastic comments are not appreciated.

About abiogenesis: It has been said that the Miller-Urey experiment has been disproved. Here's an excerpt:

The most prominent among which being the underestimation of the complexity of even the simplest life forms and their biological composition. It is true that using "the wrong gas mixture" Stanley Miller was able to synthesize certain amino acids (2-3 of the protein forming ones out of the 22 that exist), but that is an incredibly small step towards even the minimally complex living cell.* Many of the right kinds of amino acids would have to combine in the right order and proportions under their own volition to make one type of protein, and a protein itself has a minimal complexity threshold for it to function of at least 75 amino acids. Even if nature could, against all odds, create a functional protein, it takes between three hundred and five hundred proteins to make the simplest of cells. On top of that, all of this would have to happen within a mere 100 million years, the"..

"Many of the right kinds of amino acids would have to combine in the right order and proportions under their own volition to make one type of protein, and a protein itself has a minimal complexity threshold for it to function of at least 75 amino acids. Even if nature could, against all odds, create a functional protein, it takes between three hundred and five hundred proteins to make the simplest of cells. On top of that, all of this would have to happen within a mere 100 million years, the time between Earth's cooling and he earliest discovery of microfossils.

*When you use the realistic atmosphere, you do end up with relatively simple organic compounds, as most naturalists will tell you. This, however, is very misleading, due to the fact that those organic compounds (things like formaldehyde and cyanide) are actually detrimental to life!"
Source: The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel. I think he has a point.

Ahem...though the source was biased, it had a point. I was hoping for some refutation of that point.

Good answers from a lot of people. I don't really know whose to pick, so I'll leave this up to a vote.

Answer 1

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Also, the Miller Urey experiment has not been disproven. What you said was a lie. Provide some valid sources.

Furthermore, why is this in the Religion and Spirituality section?

EDIT: Just by viewing the source, I can safely say that your "evidence" is about as true as saying that the moon is made out of cheese. Try again bud.

Answer 2

Hats off to you for providing some form of evidence and not just attacking on an emotional level. Also for questioning what has been given as truth. Evolution doesn't even pass the common sense test, let alone scientific study. To say that we came about when a cell mutated because the stars and moon aligned and created the ideal conditions, and then it went on to have all of these "lucky" mutations that caused it to evolve into not just humans, but animals, trees, bugs and every other living thing you see is just plain fantasy. (Of course, I'm simplifying it, but this is what it boils down to.)

It's funny, people criticize "religion" saying you have to believe what you can't see. But, it seems that if you attach the word science to anything, they're eager to believe it, to the point that they won't even ask themselves if it's plausible or not. Then they talk about it like they're experts in it even though they've never studied it personally. They get all of their information from a teacher or a book.

Believing something doesn't make it true.

Answer 3

It is not true that most mutations in the line of human development were beneficial. Just as with any evolutionary line, most hominid mutations were harmful, and those in which such mutations appeared were weeded out of the population. In general, only the neutral or beneficial mutations were passed on genetically. However hominids, because of their superior intelligence, could often survive in spite of mutations which might kill off other life forms. For example, an animal without heavy fur would be at a distinct disadvantage if the climate got colder. But humans solved that problem by taking the furry coats of other species and wrapping themselves in them.
.

Answer 4

Why would seriously debillatating mutations be passed along? That's what natural selection does for us - it keeps the worst mutations out and selects for those that give us the greatest advantage. Not all mutations are harmful - most are nutral, actually.

In addition, abiogenesis and evolution are NOT dependant upon one another to be true.

Answer 5

1) If mutation is random. (1)
2) Amino acids formed from inorganic compounds in laboratory replicating the conditiions of a "young earth" (2)

Answer 6

I don't think it is possible to overstate the significance that the examples of bacteria and insects do not offer evidence of macroevolution because they do not add information to the genome, especially when these examples continue to promoted strongly by Darwinists as proof of their theory.
Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands...The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory.

Answer 7

What would make you think that evolution would say that most of our mutations were beneficial? Most of them certainly were harmful. Some of those caused the person carrying those genes to fail to live long enough to reproduce. The result, of course, is evolution.

I do think that you did a nice job of asking this, though. It's far better than the obviously creationist "questions" we usually get attacking evolution.

Answer 8

If you're a biology student, then you should know that most mutations are neutral.

If you're a biology student in college, and you believe in creationism, then I would strongly recommend dropping out of whatever college you're currently in.

Answer 9

My theory or the current? Mine is man is man and always was. Yes apes and the kind are simliar to human in physical sense, never were or will be the same unless some guy is mutated by an evil scientist.