Evolution: The ramfications of multiple mutations And the necessity for Informatio.

First of all, I merely took two paragraphs from the original source. I then separated them to give an easier reading. They do also refer to mathematics and therefor support my claims, and do not MAKE my claims. As for your first rebuttal: ---> "70% of all mutations have a DIRECT negative effect on the individual." Yes, and bad mutations much less likely to be passed on. l fail to see how this is at all relevant. ---> "In many cases the structure is of no direct harm, yet all structures DO require extra energy..." I stated DIRECT impacts. As for secondary impacts, we lower the odds to less than 0.001% to have an impact free mutation with beneficial aspects only. This is quite low and remains with the other problems generated by the mutation, such as the need for support provided by other mutations. You also assume that sexual reproduction slows the process of mutation. However, this has been proven false on numerous occasions, for a very specific reason: It is the advantage of complementation (also known as hybrid vigor, heterosis or MASKING OF MUTATIONS) that happens to occur during sexual reproduction, lowering the odds to pass one on by half on each individuals. This is not what I would call helpful to the odds. Time Parameters for the Evolution: As for the bacteria, we OBSERVED 378,000 generations in a laboratory stance with factors that enhanced the growth of mutations. It is reasonable to assume that a simple animal would need at least a dozen times this number, only due to differences in the length of the DNA strains. A hundred time this number would make 3,780,000 generations before having an actually useful trait. In other words, more or less 4 millions generation. Now, if we look at the fact that most of the animals needs around 5 years to achieve a generation, (And even then I'm being generous) we pass to 18,900,000 years to achieve a SINGLE useful trait. As the passage to one family to another requires at least a thousand (And more, in most of the cases) useful mutations, we go up to 18,900,000,000 years. We've already passed Earth existence (4,500,000,000)... Don't seem that probable to me. Of course, we could continue on with every families (Not even species!) on Earth, and we will go further the creation of our solar system. And just a small side-note, simple animal forms are believed to be of existence since (only) 600 millions years (1). Now, with luck, it would indeed be possible to slightly lower the year requirement without getting too much off the probability laws. Now, let's compare 18,900,000,000 years (For one new family!) to the best estimates of animal life: 600,000,000 years. I let you compare those odds, and if you have the slightest knowledge in mathematics, you would understand that it's an instance of what we call something impossible. Probabilities of multiple beneficial mutations: My three source do assert that they're was a symposium in 1966. Now, if you want other sources that describes the results: http://www.evolutionnews.org... (3 and 4) I fear this one is quite credible, as it originates for a pro-evolution site. If you want a description of the symposium: (3)""""One of the best known mathematical forays into evolution was the 1966 Wistar Symposium, held in Philadelphia, where mathematicians and other scientists from related fields congregated to assess whether Neo-Darwinism is mathematically feasible. The conference was chaired by Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar. The general consensus of many meeting participants was that Neo-Darwinism was simply not mathematically tenable. """" (4)"""" "We (The participants) do not know any general principle which would explain how to match blueprints viewed as typographic objects and the things they are supposed to control. The only example we have of such a situation (apart from the evolution of life itself) is the attempt to build self-adapting programs by workers in the field of artificial intelligence. Their experience is quite conclusive to most of the observers: without some built-in matching, nothing interesting can occur. Thus, to conclude, we believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology." """" To see some of the mathematical calculus that lead to some of those conclusions, please refer to my anterior posts or the resume stated at the end. Vestigial structures: The human appendix was a mere example. It was long tough to be one of those vestigial structures. However, with studies versed into the subject, we discovered it wasn't. Now, my rebuttal to your argument will be in the form of a very simple question on which I would like a DIRECT (such as yes or no) answer: Is it possible, that due to the current knowledge, that those "vestigial" structures have a primary or secondary purpose of which we have not discovered yet, such in the long believed case of the human appendix? The cooper "resistant" plants: First of all, they do make a cryptic species complex 2-(In biology, a cryptic species complex is a group of species which satisfy the biological definition of species—that is, they are reproductively isolated from each other—but whose morphology is very similar (in some cases virtually identical), and are not completely dissociated from their original specie. The consideration on if it's really a speciation instance or just a diversification example is still under debate. For those reasons, PRO's arguments can be considered as weak due to their bases on questionable and easy refutable data. Quick resume and Conclusion: Despite a few personal attacks and lack of research into the sources from PRO's part, leading into false accusations, this was a debate which I would qualify to be quite entertaining and rather interesting. As for a quick resume for those who lack the time/will to read the whole argumentation: My arguments are based on the fact that mutation do need several factors in order to be truly beneficial, such as support provided by other mutations or they will draw energy and make them literally useless, having multiple mutations, on the mathematical side, can be resumed through this: The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 10^7 x 10^7, or 10^14. That's a one followed by 14 zeros, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That's a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That's one in a billion trillion (10^21). Suddenly, the ocean isn't big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations. What about trying for four related mutations? One in 10^28. Suddenly, the earth isn't big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we're talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. The time parameters for evolution and probabilities can be resumed through the calculus based up above in my thread. Sources: 1-http://en.wikipedia.org... 2-http://en.wikipedia.org...