Do scientists still cling to mutations as the cause of Darwinian evolution?

Question

Or have they tucked tail and admitted defeat? I've never heard them publicly announce that they found the majour flaws with suggesting that blind mutations cause our existence, yet science is supposed to eliminate outdated theories/ideas once they become false.

Darwin didn't know how to his theory could've worked, so he ASSUMED that it was through mutations. But now we see that 99% of mutations are harmful, do not add information, and are completely blind. It makes no sense whatsoever to think how all forms of life (most of which, including the smallest cell, are irriducably complex) came about through blind, unguided, harmful acts of genetics.

Shouldn't they've tried to come up with another theory as to how macroevolution happened?

Answer 1

Scientists have *NEVER* clung to mutation as the "cause" of Darwinian evolution.

Only clueless Creationists who have no friggin' idea what Darwinian evolution is, think that Darwinian evolution was *EVER* "caused" by mutations.

>"Darwin didn't know how to his theory could've worked, so he ASSUMED that it was through mutations."

No. That could only be written by somebody who has never read Darwin.

Since genetic mutations had not been discovered by Darwin's time, Darwin certainly could not have "ASSUMED" that mutations had anything to do with it!

>"But now we see that 99% of mutations are harmful, do not add information, and are completely blind. "

This is, of course, a statistic you just made up out of the blue.  (Most mutations are neutral, not harmful.)  

But it doesn't matter.  You fail to see that 1% is enough.   Because the *ENTIRE POINT* of Darwin's insight is that natural selection is NOT "blind" but rather relentlessly discards the "harmful" mutations (even if it's 99%) and not only keeps the beneficial ones that *do* add "new information" (even if it's only 1%), but mass-produces them into the population.

That is 10th-grade-level Darwinism 101.  

But it's clear that you prefer to maintain a ridiculously absurd "straw man" version of Darwinism in your head so that you have something you can refute.  That's OK.  That's the Creationist way ... invent an absurd, nonsensical version of "evolution" that NO scientist has ever advocated, and then say "see how absurd and nonsensical it is!"

So again, all you have done is reinforced the image that Creationists get to be Creationists by maintaining a steadfast ignorance of the science they are rejecting.

Answer 2

This question demonstrates an astounding lack of knowledge about evolution.

Maybe 99% of mutations are harmful, what is the point? It is the 1% or so which either are neutral or helpful that help to drive evolution. I really have difficulty seeing what your point is. Do you not think that beneficial mutations occur? They do, and have been observed many times.

Do you not think these mutations can be hereditary? If they are genetic mutations, they are.

Neither of these points is at all in contention. Both are solidly supported by observation. So we have beneficial (in the sense of increasing fitness) mutations occurring some times and we have those mutations being passed on to offspring. That is practically natural selection.

So I really have difficulty seeing what the point of your question is, since beneficial mutations do occur. What exactly is false then about positing mutations as a mechanism of natural selection?

Answer 3

Once again....there is ample proof from many convergent sources that evolution is true ..Check the statement of the National Academy of Sciences and AAAS, among many otjers ..Ehiile there is NO , NO  NO evidence for any of the drivel you believe...get an understanding of science in general and evolution oin particular before you make the same , stale, unreasoned, and oftentimes erroneous and falsified statements....

Answer 4

Natural selection acts on the "descent with variation," providing a means of differential reproductive success based on traits inherited by an individual.  A few generations of this can change the allele frequencies within a population.  A few hundred generations of this, acting on an isolated population, can cause it to diverge sufficiently from its "parent" population to be considered a different species.

Please read a modern biology textbook.  The book which you have been consulting, which was written about 1,700 years ago (with some parts much older), is woefully out of date, and wasn't intended to be a science book anyway.

Answer 5

LOL - Well it sounds like you've come up with another theory! Are you sure you know what evolution is?

I'm sure that you think you know what you're talking about - but you're wrong. Try working your way through these sites, you need some basics:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outli...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Answer 6

To answer your obviously rhetorical question, yes.

I'd continue, but there is really no point (outside of an academic one) of arguing with someone as ill informed and prejudice to ideas as you present yourself to be.

Answer 7

We have observed beneficial random mutations many, many, many times.

From antibiotic resistance to E. coli evolving the ability to digest citrate.  I personally have observed a beneficial suppressor mutant in yeast.

We have also seen new genes arise in the lab and in the wild.

Nylonase, a novel enzyme in bacteria that digests a synthetic polymer, new glucose transporters in yeast, ect.

Mutations that are harmful simply don't matter.  They are removed.  Selection insures that evolution is not random.

Additionally, the idea of irreducible complexity has fallen to pieces with every proposed example.  Claiming "I don't know how this could have evolved so it must not have" is a poor idea on many fronts.  It is intellectual suicide to give up, and more importantly, as we learn more it becomes clear that the claim of irreducible complexity is very premature.

From what we know, there is no reason random mutations cannot account for evolution.  If you think there is another mechanism that contributes, propose it and collect evidence.

Answer 8

Interesting lack of biological knowledge:

> "Do scientists still cling to mutations as the cause of Darwinian evolution?"

No, and they never have.

Mutation is the cause of variation (this is the major addition in the "Neo-Darwinian" view of evolution, or the "Modern Synthesis").

Variation and Selection are the causes of evolution (this was Darwin's theory).

> "I've never heard them publicly announce that they found the major flaws with suggesting that blind mutations cause our existence, yet science is supposed to eliminate outdated theories/ideas once they become false."

Correct.

It is, and it does - which is why we no longer accept the Luminiferous Aether, or Phlogiston, or Lamarckian Evolution as true.

Darwinian Evolution, OTOH, has withstood every scientific challenge, which is why it is still held as valid.

> "Darwin didn't know how to his theory could've worked, so he ASSUMED that it was through mutations."

Darwin knew very well how his theory worked - but he had NO IDEA what mutations were. The field of genetics didn't even exist yet.

> "But now we see that 99% of mutations are harmful, do not add information, and are completely blind."

Even if 99% are harmful (and where is your evidence suggesting this is the case, BTW), that is still 1% beneficial. Which still provides plenty of variation for selection to work on, and for evolution to result.

Gene duplications can and do increase the amount of information in a genome - and polyploidy events (a doubling of the ENTIRE GENOME) are very common in plants. Wheat, for example, is a hybrid grass that is the result of two seperate hybridizations and polyploidies.

And ALL mutations are "blind" - they are random. But that is the point, you see. The direction of evolution is not dictated at the mutational level - but at the selection level.

> "It makes no sense whatsoever to think how all forms of life (most of which, including the smallest cell, are irriducably complex) came about through blind, unguided, harmful acts of genetics."

I'm afraid I have to disagree. It makes perfect sense.

And there has not ever been anything proposed as "Irreducibly Complex" which has not subsequently been show to not be.

In fact, the Irreducible Complexity argument is flawed from the beginning. It is an "Argument from Incredulity": essentially it says "I do not understand how [feature X] could have evolved, therefore no-one will ever understand how [feature X] evolved, therefore it didn't evolve!"

It demonstrates [1] a complete lack of imagination on the part of the arguer, and [2] a collossal arrogance, as they assume that because THEY haven't been able to do so, no-one will ever figure it out.

> "Shouldn't they've tried to come up with another theory as to how macroevolution happened?"

Sure.

Come up with one which fits all existing data, and which is simpler than Natural Selection. You'll get yourself a Nobel Prize.