this is a good clip, kinda reminds me of in here... from a futurama episode called "A clockwork origin"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU

Wow! Does that ever sound familiar?

i never said it always existed, i said i didn't know and more than likely would never find out. but funny how god and the universe are paralleled the way they are. god built the heavens and the earth in 6 days, the universe and everything in it was created in a fraction of a second... and neither could be true, IMO...

It's easy to assume something is relevant but I'm sure of who I am and what I perceive. I am not exactly agnostic either. I do believe in god but I think we create our own gods after all there can be no god without an audience no matter what he/she or it is. I suppose the confusion there comes from assuming when somebody opens up to the idea of a god you assume it's the same thing you had in mind. Do I have a god? No, I have found nothing worthy in my life of bowing before no matter if it's flesh or some obscure spiritual concept. So by all philosophical points I would actually be considered an atheist. Enjoying your life and those around you I believe to be the meaning of life. The funny thing is that so many people have a lot of trouble with such a seemingly simple thing. I do feel good to do good to those who are deserving of it, giving love to those who aren't is a waste of my time and energy. And I've had interesting times already...believe Me! Now I just want to be around people that think more like I do.

this is a good clip, kinda reminds me of in here... from a futurama episode called "A clockwork origin"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU

I watched the video, unfortunately mocking creationists does not add to the evidence, sorry for you buddy! LOL

Science observes many extinctions in the fossil record.
Science observes chromosomal patterns full of mutated damage.
Science observes more and more "living fossils"
Science does not observe increasing numbers of beneficial genes when doing genome sequencing.

Now when you take the actual facts, and compare them to the hominid fossil record its more logical to assume extinctions of what used to be a larger variety of hominid types, rather than evolution.

(ps mocking is a good form of persuasion, it actually does work, but most people do prefer facts)

You really need a reality check. Your story has changed repeatedly. You have asked for proof of increasing complexity and when you got it, you mocked it. You asked for examples of beneficial gene changes and once given, you mocked it. You stated falsely that the fossil record was incorrect and made by biologists. When you got positive proof that it was not, you stated falsely that those who made the record were "influenced", which they were not.

You have used pseudoscience throughout and have ignored every bit of real science thrown your way. You have continuously mocked the actual science while providing falsehoods to argue with no real facts to back it up.

In every case of real science that proves you wrong, you simply state the "it doesn't prove anything" when in reality it has proven to a host of real scientists the actual progression of life on this planet.

The cartoon is funny because it describes your actions to a tee. To mock it while doing exactly what it describes is hypocrisy.

It is obvious that, in your mind, you are winning this argument while using your "heads I win, tails you lose" logic. You are not. You are merely proving that you don't understand how science works and you have no interest in learning it. If you think you are convincing anyone of your position I am sure they will tell you.

There is nothing wrong with you having any beliefs you want. But please don't confuse your position with science. It is not.

The truth is that molecular biologists find many damaged and neutral genes when doing genome sequencing, yet do not find beneficial gene insertions.

There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection that has been observed as it occurs.[7][8][9][10]

This discovery led geneticist Susumu Ohno to speculate that the gene for one of the enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase, had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation.[2]

I watched the video, unfortunately mocking creationists does not add to the evidence, sorry for you buddy! LOL

Science observes many extinctions in the fossil record.
Science observes chromosomal patterns full of mutated damage.
Science observes more and more "living fossils"
Science does not observe increasing numbers of beneficial genes when doing genome sequencing.

Now when you take the actual facts, and compare them to the hominid fossil record its more logical to assume extinctions of what used to be a larger variety of hominid types, rather than evolution.

(ps mocking is a good form of persuasion, it actually does work, but most people do prefer facts)

You have never once given me any evidence of beneficial gene insertions occurring in nature. The mice example was artificial and caused the mice to shown signs of human brain cell formations, however we do not know if these mice lived long or benefitted in any manner from having human brain cells. All this showed is that duplicated portions of the human genome can become active. This did not show that the duplicate portions actually have any existing function in a human. The chomosomal polymorphism just illustrated that subspecies can be created through mutation, u did not illustrate that the mutations involved beneficial gene insertions.

When u mentioned telomeres, yes I don't mind admitting that I didn't know about them and I also don't mind admitting that I adjust my view to fit scientific evidence. This is the more correct scientific approach, someone who is dogmatic about their view without adjusting it would be foolish, so what you seem to be critisizing is actually a compliment, I do adjust my view according to the evidence presented, anything less is foolish.

As for your other allegations, they are all utter nonsense, evolutionists have assumptions regarding the interpretation of the fossil record, I was not critcising the geologic timescale as put forward by geologits, I was criticizing evolutionists interpretation of the timescale and already explained that. If by your numbers and tone you feel you have the more scientific position, you are incorrect. If you feel by the number of irrelevant links you post you have the more scientific position you are incorrect. The truth is that molecular biologists find many damaged and neutral genes when doing genome sequencing, yet do not find beneficial gene insertions. The predictive power of this would be extinctions, which are being observed. These are the facts, the facts themselves point to devolution not evolution.

I stand by every word of my previous post. You should really take a step back and look at some the false things you are saying like the fossils dating the geology.

But here is another blurb that you can simply state doesn't mean anything, isn't true, or you don't believe.

from Wiki

Beneficial mutations

Although mutations that change in protein sequences can be harmful to an organism; on occasions, the effect may be positive in a given environment. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[62] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One possible explanation of the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People with this mutation were more likely to survive infection; thus its frequency in the population increased.[63] This theory could explain why this mutation is not found in southern Africa, where the bubonic plague never reached. A newer theory suggests that the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was caused by smallpox instead of the bubonic plague.[64]

Another example is Sickle cell disease, a blood disorder in which the body produces an abnormal type of the oxygen-carrying substance hemoglobin in the red blood cells. One-third of all indigenous inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa carry the gene,[65] because in areas where malaria is common, there is a survival value in carrying only a single sickle-cell gene (sickle cell trait).[66] Those with only one of the two alleles of the sickle-cell disease are more resistant to malaria, since the infestation of the malaria plasmodium is halted by the sickling of the cells which it infests.

Another research from Denmark concludes that blue-eyes are the mutated character of human eyes which were originally brown from around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The benign mutation actually effected the OAC2 gene which colorizes our hair and has other functions related to liver e.t.c. So all blue-eyed people share a common ancestor[67]

why this is on the subject of god creating man,this is a very good question "why did God give men breast nipples if we can't produce milk?"

Seen this topic and couldn't resist. So I'll throw in my 2 cents.

I used to think about this kind of stuff constantly than I realized that the answer wouldn't change anything about me or how I viewed the world so I pretty much opened up my mind to accept either.

Being an accident or being created by an alien would not make much difference to me, I'm here and I'm going to enjoy myself. The quote "I'd rather be damned for who I am than accepted for what I'm not" kinda dismissed the latent fear the overly religious types like to throw around.

On page 19 I twice acknowledged that beneficial mutations do occur and was the first to bring up the "Duffy gene", the gene that protects Africans from malaria. However these nearly alway involve loss of function in certain genes, as in all 3 of the examples mentioned by you.

For single cell organisms of about 1000 genes to evolve to complex organisms of about 32000 genes (humans) requires continuous beneficial increases to the number of genes, evolving MORE functional genes than before, not less. This has been my point this whole thread, molecular biology reveals reduced functional genes over time (sometimes usefully), not increased functional genes.

Promotion of genetic variation

August Weismann proposed in 1889[9] an explanation for the evolution of sex, where the advantage of sex is the creation of variation among siblings. It was then subsequently explained in genetics terms by Fisher[10] and Muller[11] and has been recently summarised by Burt in 2000.[12]

George C. Williams gave an example based around the elm tree. In the forest of this example, empty patches between trees can support one individual each. When a patch becomes available because of the death of a tree, other trees' seeds will compete to fill the patch. Since the chance of a seed's success in occupying the patch depends upon its genotype, and a parent cannot anticipate which genotype is most successful, each parent will send many seeds, creating competition between siblings. Natural selection therefore favours parents which can produce a variety of offspring.

A similar hypothesis is named the tangled bank hypothesis after a passage in Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species:

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us."

The hypothesis, proposed by Michael Ghiselin in his 1974 book, The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex, suggests that a diverse set of siblings may be able to extract more food from its environment than a clone, because each sibling uses a slightly different niche. One of the main proponents of this hypothesis is Graham Bell of McGill University. The hypothesis has been criticised for failing to explain how asexual species developed sexes. In his book, Evolution and Human Behavior (MIT Press, 2000), John Cartwright comments:

"Although once popular, the tangled bank hypothesis now seems to face many problems, and former adherents are falling away. The theory would predict a greater interest in sex among animals that produce lots of small offspring that compete with each other. In fact, sex is invariably associated with organisms that produce a few large offspring, whereas organisms producing small offspring frequently engage in parthenogenesis [asexual reproduction]. In addition, the evidence from fossils suggests that species go for vast periods of [geologic] time without changing much."

Spread of advantageous traits
Novel genotypes
This diagram illustrates how sex might create novel genotypes more rapidly. Two advantageous alleles A and B occur at random. The two alleles are recombined rapidly in a sexual population (top), but in an asexual population (bottom) the two alleles must independently arise because of clonal interference.



Sex could be a method by which novel genotypes are created. Since sex combines genes from two individuals, sexually reproducing populations can more easily combine advantageous genes than can asexual populations. If, in a sexual population, two different advantageous alleles arise at different loci on a chromosome in different members of the population, a chromosome containing the two advantageous alleles can be produced within a few generations by recombination. However, should the same two alleles arise in different members of an asexual population, the only way that one chromosome can develop the other allele is to independently gain the same mutation, which would take much longer.

Ronald Fisher also suggested that sex might facilitate the spread of advantageous genes by allowing them to escape their genetic surroundings, if they should arise on a chromosome with deleterious genes.

Supporters of these theories respond to the balance argument that the individuals produced by sexual and asexual reproduction may differ in other respects too – which may influence the persistence of sexuality. For example, in water fleas of the genus Cladocera, sexual offspring form eggs which are better able to survive the winter.
Increased resistance to parasites

One of the most widely accepted theories to explain the persistence of sex is that it is maintained to assist sexual individuals in resisting parasites, also known as the Red Queen's Hypothesis.[8][13][14]

When an environment changes, previously neutral or deleterious alleles can become favourable. If the environment changed sufficiently rapidly (i.e. between generations), these changes in the environment can make sex advantageous for the individual. Such rapid changes in environment are caused by the co-evolution between hosts and parasites.

Imagine, for example that there is one gene in parasites with two alleles p and P conferring two types of parasitic ability, and one gene in hosts with two alleles h and H, conferring two types of parasite resistance, such that parasites with allele p can attach themselves to hosts with the allele h, and P to H. Such a situation will lead to cyclic changes in allele frequency - as p increases in frequency, h will be disfavoured.

In reality, there will be several genes involved in the relationship between hosts and parasites. In an asexual population of hosts, offspring will only have the different parasitic resistance if a mutation arises. In a sexual population of hosts, however, offspring will have a new combination of parasitic resistance alleles.

In other words, like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen, sexual hosts are continually adapting in order to stay ahead of their parasites.

Evidence for this explanation for the evolution of sex is provided by comparison of the rate of molecular evolution of genes for kinases and immunoglobulins in the immune system with genes coding other proteins. The genes coding for immune system proteins evolve considerably faster.[15][16]

Further evidence for the Red Queen hypothesis were provided by observing long‐term dynamics and parasite coevolution in a “mixed” (sexual and asexual) population of snails (Potamopyrgus antipodarum). The number of sexuals, the number asexuals, and the rates of parasite infection for both were monitored. It was found that clones that were plentiful at the beginning of the study became more susceptible to parasites over time. As parasite infections increased, the once plentiful clones dwindled dramatically in number. Some clonal types disappeared entirely. Meanwhile, sexual snail populations remained much more stable over time.[17][18]

In 2011, researchers used the microscopic roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans as a host and the pathogenic bacteria Serratia marcescens to generate a host-parasite coevolutionary system in a controlled environment, allowing them to conduct more than 70 evolution experiments testing the Red Queen Hypothesis. They genetically manipulated the mating system of C. elegans, causing populations to mate either sexually, by self-fertilization, or a mixture of both within the same population. Then they exposed those populations to the S. marcescens parasite. It was found that the self-fertilizing populations of C. elegans were rapidly driven extinct by the coevolving parasites while sex allowed populations to keep pace with their parasites, a result consistent with the Red Queen Hypothesis.[19][20]

Critics of the Red Queen hypothesis question whether the constantly-changing environment of hosts and parasites is sufficiently common to explain the evolution of sex.[citation needed]
Deleterious mutation clearance

Mutations can have many different effects upon an organism. It is generally believed that the majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious, which means that they will cause a decrease in the organism's overall fitness.[21] If a mutation has a deleterious effect, it will then usually be removed from the population by the process of natural selection. Sexual reproduction is believed to be more efficient than asexual reproduction in removing those mutations from the genome.[22]

There are two main hypotheses which explain how sex may act to remove deleterious genes from the genome.
Maintenance of mutation-free individuals
Main article: Muller's ratchet

In a finite asexual population under the pressure of deleterious mutations, the random loss of individuals without such mutations is inevitable. This is known as Muller's ratchet. In a sexual population, however, mutation-free genotypes can be restored by recombination of genotypes containing deleterious mutations.

This comparison will only work for a small population - in a large population, random loss of the most fit genotype becomes unlikely even in an asexual population.
Removal of deleterious genes
Diagram illustrating different relationships between numbers of mutations and fitness. Kondrashov's model requires synergistic epistasis, which is represented by the red line[23][24] - each mutation has a disproproportionately large effect on the organism's fitness.

This hypothesis was proposed by Alexey Kondrashov, and is sometimes known as the deterministic mutation hypothesis.[22] It assumes that the majority of deleterious mutations are only slightly deleterious, and affect the individual such that the introduction of each additional mutation has an increasingly large effect on the fitness of the organism. This relationship between number of mutations and fitness is known as synergistic epistasis.

By way of analogy, think of a car with several minor faults. Each is not sufficient alone to prevent the car from running, but in combination, the faults combine to prevent the car from functioning.

Similarly, an organism may be able to cope with a few defects, but the presence of many mutations could overwhelm its backup mechanisms.

Kondrashov argues that the slightly deleterious nature of mutations means that the population will tend to be composed of individuals with a small number of mutations. Sex will act to recombine these genotypes, creating some individuals with fewer deleterious mutations, and some with more. Because there is a major selective disadvantage to individuals with more mutations, these individuals die out. In essence, sex compartmentalises the deleterious mutations.

There has been much criticism of Kondrashov's theory, since it relies on two key restrictive conditions. The first requires that the rate of deleterious mutation should exceed one per genome per generation in order to provide a substantial advantage for sex. While there is some empirical evidence for it (for example in Drosophila[25] and E. coli[26]), there is also strong evidence against it.[citation needed] Secondly, there should be strong interactions among loci (synergistic epistasis), a mutation-fitness relation for which there is only limited evidence. Conversely, there is also the same amount of evidence that mutations show no epistasis (purely additive model) or antagonistic interactions (each additional mutation has a disproportionally small effect).

What you say does make sense, generally a healthy attitude. (Although obviously us christians feel the love stretches further than just those who deserve it and we need God's help to do that.) When I say interesting times , I just mean that now that I mentioned how easily we try to be good to others and fail, you may become more aware of it, or maybe not , lol.

Do you have a citation for this? You keep saying this, but I have yet to see anything that backs it up.

There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection that has been observed as it occurs.[7][8][9][10]

This discovery led geneticist Susumu Ohno to SPECULATE that the gene for one of the enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase, had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation.[2]

Just imagine how much sex it took to bring us here today! Thank you, thank you very much!

Caps added for emphasis, he was speculating