I was debating with one theist.. who said....

"At least 99.9% of mutations are harmful A 99.9% harmful mutation rate couldn't account for the evolutionary process mutations in the time
span evolutionists say that life has evolved for. If there is a 0.1%
chance of any given mutation being beneficial then time span would, be
more then Now, imagine what the chances are of a fish evolving into a
human being?

Never in even a trillion years. Mathematicians say that any odd greater than 1 in 1 million os mathematically insignificant."

.

Can someone help me to refute this?

Views: 65

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Number 1: What is the source of the "99.9% of mutations are harmful" line this theist is using as 'evidence'? They must, at the very least, list their sources if they are to be taken credibly. They demand no less from us.

In terms of how to respond to the mutation question in general, try this link.

"The long answer is that mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. Let's look at an example of a mutation which may be harmful or helpful, depending upon circumstances.

English peppered moths come in two varieties, light and dark. Before the industrial revolution dark moths were very rare. During the worst years of the industrial revolution when the air was very sooty dark moths became quite common. In recent years, since the major efforts to improve air quality, the light moths are replacing the dark moths.

This is a classic example of natural selection; the variations in a species which are better suited to the environment survive and reproduce more effectively than those which do not.

It can be very tricky to determine why some variations better fit their environments than others. The peppered moth is a good example. In a famous paper Kettlewell proposed the following explanation:

Birds eat the kind of moth they can see the best.
In England before the Industrial Revolution trees are often covered with light colored lichens. As a result light moths were favored because they were hard to see on the bark of trees whereas the dark moths were easy to see; birds ate the dark moths. During the worst years of the Industrial Revolution the air was very sooty so tree bark was dark because of soot. Dark moths were hard to see whereas the light moths were easy to see; birds ate the light moths. As a result the dark moths became common and the light moths became rare.

Kettlewell's explanation (which makes for an appealing story) has not stood the test of time. Peppered moths seldom rest on exposed areas of the trunks of trees. Moreover the distribution of dark moths might not be well correlated with tree color except in the areas which Kettlewell studied. Some more recent studies indicate that peppered moth melanism is very well correlated with the amount of SO2 (sulfur dioxide) in the air. [5]
None-the-less, before the Industrial Revolution a mutation which changed light moths into dark moths was an unfavorable (harmful) mutation whereas during the dark years it was a favorable (helpful) mutation."
Thank you for the reply... I'm new to this site and loving it....!
Welcome!
Number 2: Whoever said that humans evolved from fish? Classic strawman.

Number 3: The odds of something happening, however small, are irrelevant if it actually did happen.

Number 4: The universe is a big place. Events with astronomically small 'odds' happen ALL THE TIME.
Number 2 could not motivate evolution. An almost infinite series of "just so" events is not evolution. That is called magic.
Excuse me? That is so cryptic it is rendered nearly unintelligible.
Implying that magic works.
Number 2 has nothing to do with magic - it is about the logical fallacy of presenting a case of humans evolving from fish.
Number 2 was the first thought I had upon reading the argument. There are no 'odds' if something already happened.
I think odds do matter if we are to determine whether what happened was just a coincidence. For example, if you toss a coin a million times and it's always heads, you can conclude that it's really unlikely that it was a coincidence. There is a chance in 2 to the power 1,000,000 for that to happen. Therefore, it is more likely that the coin has heads on both faces, or that some other thing is altering the outcome of your tosses.

That being said, to say that evolution is unlikely is stupid. It only means that the person making the claim is ignorant of science in general.
That isn't the same thing. If you are looking at a single event, which in this case is that we have evolved into what we are from whatever we started from, the odds are 100% because it happened. Just as if you toss a coin one time and it lands on heads, the odds of it landing on heads that one time are 100%. We could look at the odds of a fish now evolving into a human, and use that data if that's what you mean. Of course, I am using this example for the sake of argument, because thinking that fish evolve into people is a poor example of evolution.
Actually I'm an engineering student... Don't know biology in depth... So thought you people could help me.... Thanks for replying...

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service