evolutionists timming is every thing ,how many mutations over what time period?

Question

how many steps /mutational states to get from whatever to man?
you dont even need to name them but it would be more convincing if a complete authoritive definative step by step is being put forward
if you dont have facts give me the theory ,
of course extra points if you can proove your theory
for now just keeping it simple i just need the number of stages the theory encompasses
and for those commenting on my spelling thats no proof
whats the proof?
concencus or theory?
and for gods sake if its another link give me coordinates
ie page ,line verse that backs your referencing it?

zero evolution if scientific must be based on science fact ,ie mutation rate in the species /disallow unfavorable mutations [not all are favourable ,see the gene manipulation we are doing ,thousands ,millions to get a single new improvement

nicholus transitionals would have to be favourable [right] so they have a better chance by your theory to survive than the parental?
yet the ancestoral survives annd the improved have disappeared please explain?

yuri divergent paths?
im talking about steps/stages /transitory stages and the timming needed via the mutations needed in trying to show it is mathimaticlly un able to be done even given infinite steps let alone the mathimatic outlinners ,see 144,000 steps being from there to here ie one favourable mutation every??????
i need numbers that the theory isnt able to put up because the maths become as absurd as the theory.

nicholas definative steps ,as determined by fossil record ,assuming they even are on the same continent ,or are found in the same layer ,there have just been too few to establish the truth
working by math it becomes absurd regardless of how many people walking accross the room
[i know thats not yours but it highlights what people are being told]
transitional stage evolutions are presumably advantagious thus theireticlliy better able to survive than its ancestoral parentals ,match that with the need to fix the trait plus the mutational rate ,time place numbers its becoming absurd ,
im not calling you absurd ,i recall your donkey from virtually the first day here ,but take the donkey /horse /mule infertile surly ability to bred would prove a reasonable measure to validate the improvement theory
its a numbers game bro ,with the small numbers of favourable we get into mathimatical chance ,the maths wouldnt be able to do it
take the crossover rate between two resessive genes the ch

small populations are more likely to devrelop ressesive gene combinations but large groups are more likely to have the numbers to mutate
it cancels itself out
a mutation in the large herd of a bigger horn is advantagious but the mutation that discards the horn alltogther will extint itself because it is a non attractive feature for breeding
any mutation will be found threatening by rivals who will seek to kill the threat
we see this even in humans the threat raised by difference is such a threat it really has more going against it than for it
transitional stage that threaten the status quo really dont get far at all,but by isolation in small groups that are less likely to generate the sport /mutation in the first place
oh hell im over it
god will in time explain it to all of us
how does it matter where we came from
trust in god
or trust man
all of man are decieved by white coats and fables this dosnt proove any one is right ,no one but god deserves the credit nor blame

Answer 1

I hate these questions. I tried to reply to a couple of people with outlandish statements. Here goes...

Hawks also criticized the study for how he thought creationists would handle it:

Here is what I think is the worst part. It is sad that I have to care about it, but this idea of human-chimpanzee hybridization should be very appealing to creationists … . I think the most likely result is that the rest of us scientists will just ignore or move past this specific hypothesis. And it is possible that further evidence will emerge to make it seem more likely. But creationists will now cite Eric Lander in support of the idea that hominid fossils are not transitional between apes and humans, but instead are hybrids of apes and humans. [emphasis in original]

While it is interesting that evolutionists would be concerned about how creationists would handle a paper such as this, his fear is misplaced. Actually, this is what Patterson and colleagues have suggested. Credible creation scientists that I know believe that humans and apes are separate kinds. As far as the fossil hominids go, they are either full-fledged humans like the Neandertals, or extinct apes like “Lucy” the australopithecine. Creationists have no reason to invoke an outlandish hypothesis like human/ape hybrids to explain the fossil record. It is the evolutionist who must resort to this idea to defend common ancestry in light of the confusing molecular data.

Importantly, the Patterson study does not detract from creationist challenges to chimp/human ancestry. Indeed, its primary objective appears to be to explain the fact that there are large portions of both the human and chimpanzee chromosomes that match gorillas better than each other. There remain many significant differences between human and chimpanzee DNA that were not even addressed by Patterson and colleagues. Among others, these include:4

alleged fusion of two chromosomes to make human chromosome 2
differences in telomere length between humans and apes
chromosomal inversions
differences in repetitive DNA elements
In conclusion, the Patterson study does little to explain the molecular data. Even from an evolutionary perspective there are more plausible alternative explanations than hybridization events. Nor does the study significantly challenge the creationist assertion that humans and chimpanzees never shared a common ancestor. It does, however, demonstrate the incredible lengths to which evolutionists must go to rebuff the truth: humans and chimpanzees are now, and have always been, two different kinds.

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared.

Answer 2

Articles:

Evolution Explained

Fast Food

Man Eaters

Sixth Sense

Same Difference

Do your Part




Click here for profiles on your favorite animals!

Click here for the animal trivia section. Winner gets a prize! Give it a try!

Click here for the Awards that Amazing Animal Articles has won!




Evolution Explained
by David A. Rizwan
Evolution. Most people have heard of it, but not too many believe that it is possible. However, most people that see it as false do not understand it. I will try to clarify the blurry points in the Modern Evolutionary Theory. Simply put, Evolution is the process through which animals change over time. However, this seems to sum the story up a little too much. Most people that do not believe in Evolution do not fully understand it. Those people believe that the theory says that humans came from monkeys. This is not true. Those people believe that if an animal evolves, there is no prerequisite to the present animal alive. This is not true either.

The Theory of Evolution simply explains how life changes over time. This isn’t a few weeks, years, or even centuries. In most cases, this takes millions of years to be complete. The whole evolution process begins with a mutation. A mutation is any animal that is different from the norm. For instance, an albino garter snake is a mutation. A lucistic alligator is a mutation. Anything that is not normal in a living creature’s DNA is a mutation. It is obvious that some mutations would be more beneficial than others. This is where “Survival of the Fittest” comes into play. For instance, a longer bill on a nectar-feeding bird is beneficial, as it allows the bird to gather nectar much easier. Other mutations, such as an albino snake in a dark green jungle, are actually malicious. It is obvious that this snake will not be able to camouflage from predators while it is still young, making it an easy meal. The snake will never survive to the age to reproduce. The animals that are best matched to their environment will survive more, thus reproduce more.

There are sometimes periods in which the environment changes, such as the Ice Age. During the period of time, most of the world became icy and snow covered. The animals with a gene to have longer hair would usually die of heat exhaustion in the previous era. But now their hair is able to keep heat in their body, allowing them to survive better than the non-haired ones. The without hair began to die out, leaving only the ones with hair. The species had just evolved. As the environment changes, those that are fit to the new environment survive and reproduce, those that aren’t, die off.

Sometimes animals are separated from other animals of their species, such as the Galapagos Islands. These animals have a closed gene pool away from the other animals, and they also live in a different terrain type. This means that two samples of a species can evolve differently. One sample of a bird species may develop a longer bill to allow for easier food gathering, while the other sample develops a shorter bill for more control over the bill, and the final sample of the bird species may remain unchanged. Eventually through these changes and others, the two birds will eventually be so different that they can no longer reproduce. Another new species now exists.

Many believe that there is no evidence to support evolution. On the contrary, there is much more evidence than the other theories for how life came to be. When you compare two cats taxonomically, they are the same species. They can reproduce and produce fertile young. This means that all of the cat species are the same, Felis Domesticus. How did all of these come to be? Selective breeding is the key. Selective breeding is basically forced evolution upon a species. When people saw the first Siamese cat, they decided to make more. By breeding them with another cat, there is a chance to produce more of that mutation. More evidence to prove the existence evolution is homologous structures. These are structures that are made of the same thing, but fill different tasks. If you examine the skeletal structure of a whale flipper, it has the same bones as a human hand. There are many other situations such as this.

In conclusion, Evolution is a rather simple topic if you put time into fully understanding it. To evolve, all a species needs is a beneficial mutation and the death of the original version of the species. When an isolated species evolves away from the original population, it will form a new species. Since the original version is still alive, the species hasn’t evolved, but a new species has formed.

Answer 3

The point of evolution is that it more acurately reflects the world that these models are aimed at interpreting. For instance, various things such as the imperfection of the eye suggest to us that the universe is not preplanned. Wether humans evolved from something resembling an african ape or not is not precisely the point. The point is that we do in fact find various species of hominids that are found in various strata of the earth or otherwise dtaed to different time periods. And while you may extrapolate that dating is completely invalid because of past inacuracies, the mounting evidence (not just carbon dating) suports that all creatures and humans were clearly not created at the same time (2 days). Bottom line: this and other discoveries demonstrate quite obviously that the Bible cannot be viewed as a literal text.

Having said that, science has not demonstrated (proven) -- and might not ever be able to prove the line from African Ape to man. But there are definate fossilized remains of creatures living at different times that 'tend' to follw an evolution towards homo sapiens (us).

Bottom line: We have no reason not to believe in evolution at this time. Evolution (which IS only a theory) is the only model that accounts for what the world shows us.

In a sense, are you going to base your own model on a book (albeit an inspired book) or the direct creation of God -- the planet earth itself!?

Answer 4

If you should have a DNA study done (in which you collect a specimen to be analyzed by a laboratory under the auspices of a company such as Family Tree or the National Geographic Society), you will receive a report of the findings including a chart which will designate in red or green or with deletions/ strikes exactly what mutations your very own DNA possesses as compared with a "norm" established by the Human Genome Project, for which work Nobel Prizes have been awarded!

Answer 5

You are here aren't you? And to be here you must be the descendent of someone. And to be the descendent of someone that descendent must have been the descendent of someone else etc etc etc. Now the Arabs are the descendents of Ishmael right?

How many generations and over what time period?

If Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt how many and what were their names? If Genesis 1 is true where was the Garden of Eden. Map reference would be more convincing but if not please describe the layout of the garden with details of all the shrubberies.

What is the point of this question? How does it effect the veracity or otherwise of evolution? Have you just sat there and wracked your brains to find a question that, whatever the facts of the matter are, cannot be answered accurately?

Answer 6

Nobody has ever witnessed one. Mutations are virtually always harmful. Evolutionists envision an unending chain of beneficial mutations. Each beneficial mutation adds just a little bit to a developing trait, organ or appendage. Imagine an arm becoming a wing. Unable to grasp prey, and still too small to fly. Does that sound like it contributes to survivability?

Nobody has ever explained to me what this slightly evolved (mutated) organism is supposed to have mated with. Either there were an abundance of the newly evolved creatures (multiple miracles happening simultaneously) to keep this latest step in evolution going, or it would have to mate with an un-evolved creature. How long would this trait have to keep manifesting itself before another small step in evolution came about?

Why did none of these evolutionary strains die out? We know that most of the animals types that lived on this earth are now extinct. Why didn't extinction break one of these evolutionary links? How can so many fortunate accidents be explained?

Show me the proof of ONE species that evolved into another. There are none. Nobody has ever seen it happen, and nobody ever will.

And yet, all the species on the earth are supposed to be the result of evolution. You call this science?

Answer 7

The theory is that we evolved over maybe hundreds of thousands of years. Look at the skull and jawbone of, say, Peking man. Compare that to modern day homo sapiens Big difference. That is evolution. But if you're asking how long ago we were a fungus (which is actually the branch of genetics we stem from), then I would have to guess a billion years. Or more. Here's a link, if you want one:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/uou-toh021105.php

Answer 8

In Carl Sagan's book, 'The Varieties of Scientific Experience' he put evolution in anm example that may make some sense. Let's say you are in a room and walking in at a normal walking pace comes your father. Then at the same pace, your grandfather and then your great-grandfather. If everyone was walking at the same pace for 24 hours a day, it would take one week of that to get back to our ancestors, the apes. Think about it, that is a very very long time. If you equate to the actual lifetime of a human.

Answer 9

It may interest you to know also...it is easily determined that 99.99% of all mutatons are NOT beneficial to a species.....but are always harmful and detrimental to the development...a serious flaw in the assumed mechanism of evolution theory.

The assumption that mutations takes place too SLOW to observe is equally defective to anyone with even half a brain. Evoltuionist often hide behind this fallacy because they are unable to come up with any evidence since it certainly is not in the fossil record.

Evolutionist are always looking for a way to convince themselves of foolish things in spite of evidence to the contrary.
They invent all sorts of things as they go along.....everytime something doesn't work out right they invent another theory to keep it current with the latest discovers which keep invalidating their last assumption....it is really laughable

And sadly, convincing themselves is not enough for them. They have to further perpetuate their deceptions by indoctrinating our nations youth. Beware of the radical evolutionists....they will tell you anything to keep you from believing in a Creator.

Answer 10

We do not know how many mutations, the number is countless over hundreds of millions of years. However we can point to definitive steps in the process, such as the fossils of the creatures we evolved from. On this count we are better off than any creationist theory, because they can produce NO evidence that says God spoke us into existence in our present form.
-You are basically asking, "Where are the transitional forms"? And despite what many creationist will tell you, there are transitional forms.
This page talks about them:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html


UPDATE: Your update does not make sense to me, please elaborate.