Diest TKO wrote:RL, if you can't accept my Armstrong analogy, then how about this.
In parts Africa, if you are born with sickle cell anemia, you are immune to Malaria. This genetic mutation at galce seems like a mutation for the worse, but a genetic divide such as this actually can provide support for life in our present circumstances with the avalible treatments around for either disease. Oh and guess what, if you just have the sickle homoglobin (a ressesive trait), you'll be immune to malaria as well and no sickel cell anemia. So carriers of the Sickle homoglobin are also immune!
You seemed to think that pointing out if Lance Armstrong were around in the middle ages his genetic makeup would lead to his imediate dimise, and while this may be true, it is NOT the real senario. His is a genetic mutation in the present world, as with the Malaria.
Another example is HIV (or most other viruses for that matter). Viruses mutate all the time and it's for the better of their survival. Creationists would have to argue that every sort of species around right now would have always had to have been present in some genetic form.
Hell, the common Flu mutates yearly into new strands, and not for it's worse, for ours. You can't see mutations on our level (humans) because our lifetime (gestation, birth, life, reproduction, etc) is too long for large dramatic genetic anomolies to make themselves known. If you scale down to a lifeform on a celluar scale that reproduces a seemingly infinate number genrations in your lifetime, you're going to see mutations.
Ever take antibiotics? If you don't finish your perscriptions the only viruses left are the ones that had the highest resistance to whatever you took. If you symptoms come back, you will find that the same antibiotics will have a lower success rate. Even if it's only a matter of days since you quit taking your pills, because in those few days several generations of the resistant virus have reproduced and in all likelyhood adapted and prepared for your antibiotic treatment.
EVOLUTION for you to see. No theory nessisary.
Oh and about your' timemachine example with Lance Armstrong, we could certainly say that Lance's body also has antibodies not present in that time which could help him survive. Beyond genetic information, his bateria cultures present in his digestive track would also help him when compared to the bateria cultures that would exist in any given time you meantioned. Oh, let's see, any bacteria on his body or viruses brought with him that he would have no problem wiht, say antibodies for the flu, would probably kill off other humans at the time.
Tell me when you want me to quit proving that mutation often offers positive effects.
Diet,
Enviroment,
Surrounding Genetic Pool,
We call certain plants "weeds," but from a biology standpoint, they are simply supperior fauna in their ability to survive. That antibiotics example from earlier is also applicable here with the use of pesticides to kill "weeds" off.
Unfortunately for you and the evolutionary crowd, mutations have to be capable of much more than a 'positive effect'.
They must be able to produce whole new organs, biological systems and complete new body plans.
Can you name ANY organism that is currently evolving a new organ or biological system that is only partially complete?
Viruses produce multiple generations in a very short time. But they are STILL viruses. No evolution.
Same thing with bacteria. Lots of generations , but still JUST bacteria. No evolution.
And with every other organism we see change in minor ways but they and their descendants never become something else entirely.
Dogs produce dogs, fish produce fish, humans produce humans and so forth.
When your body builds up strength against a virus or bacteria, you haven't 'evolved' , have you? No.
Your body did this based on genetic information that was ALREADY there.
Same thing with other organisms.
You want to argue that bacteria 'evolve'. How can you show that the genetic pattern for the change wasn't already there?
You can't. The function of most of the genome is unknown. You cannot show that the information doesn't ALREADY exist there, because you don't know what the information means. Most of it is still a foreign language to us.
This is true whether we are talking about the human genome, the horse, the dog or bacteria.
In addition to this, scientists are now finding that there may be additional layers of information which overlay the one we are most familiar with.
You can speculate all you wish. But furnishing proof is a far different thing.
Maybe you're just too scared of the product to give it a fair chance.
