Zach asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 2 months ago

Evolutionists: How can something that is rare and usually harmful be responsible for all the biodiversity on our planet? ?

Mutations are rare and when they do occur they are almost always a bad thing which is why they have a negative stigma. There are approximately 10,000,000 species on our planet and to create each one probably took at least dozens or hundreds or positive mutations to create each one. What I'm saying is the math doesn't add up for evolution so how do you reconcile that fact? 

19 Answers

Relevance
  • Cowboy
    Lv 6
    1 month ago

    Correction: mutations are dirt common - we ALL carry some - and most of them do nothing at all. And lying about it won't get you anywhere...

    You have no idea what evolution is and what it is not.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • MARK
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Mutations are not rare. You will have a number of mutations that you have developed.

    Most mutations are not bad. Most are neutral.

    Mutations do not have any stigma attached to them.

    I do not know where you get your species number from but we do not know the number of species and we do not know the magnitude either.

    Your ignorance is not evidence for anything other than your ignorance.

    Have you ever considered doing something sensible such as reading a book on evolution and learning something in the process? No, I thought not.

    It is crystal clear from your question that you do not know anything about evolution. Therefore, criticising it is a rather asinine thing to do. If you disagree with something, e.g. evolution, the least you can sensibly do is address and argue against what the science does say.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • oikoσ
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    With very few exceptions, mutations are neither bad nor good in themselves. A lot depends on the environment. As an example, take sickle-cell anemia (bad). However that disease protects you from malarial parasites (that's good). In other instances, the heterozygous and homozygous conditions are quite different, one being a problem and the other beneficial.

    Other people have done a pretty good job of explaining the magnitude of the number of mutations and the length of time involved. You really need advanced courses in genetics, statistics, and paleontology to appreciate the probabilities. The math DOES "add up".

    • ...Show all comments
    • oikoσ
      Lv 7
      1 month agoReport

      It depends on the environment. There are white mice living on the White Sands of New Mexico and black ones living on the nearby basalt flats. Neither the genes for white fur or the ones for black fur are inherently good or bad.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    1.  On the contrary, mutations are common.  You yourself probably have at least several.  

    2.  Mutations are NOT almost always a bad thing; most are neutral.  And no matter what the ratio of bad to good, natural selection and sexual selection filter out the bad.  Ever hear of natural selection?  (No, I thought not.) 

    3.  The idea that the natural world should care whether or not we stigmatize any part of it is silly beyond measure.

    4.  You (wrongly) say that it "took at least dozens or hundreds or (sic) positive mutations  to create each [species]."  Dude, you get no extra credit for just making up stuff in your head.  Try reading a book sometime.  And when you're talking about academic subjects, try to write comprehensible sentences.

    5.  You say that "the math doesn't add up for evolution."  I doubt that you could add 2 plus 2 without making a mistake.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 2 months ago

    The 'usually harmful' ones get killed off. You're talking about mutations happening in any environment around the entire planet, so yes, it does work.

    • Help2 months agoReport

      Harful ones get killed off?  Really?  That ends that lifeform 'usually'

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    Lots and lots of time.  Unlike your big imaginary friend in the sky who apparently did everything in 6 days.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Zirp
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    What do you mean rare? Every human carries like a dozen DNA-copying typos compared to their parents. That's 70 billion, in humanity alone

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    o Multiply your "rare" by how many organisms are born, hatched, sprouted, divided every day.

    o The negative things can be weeded out through natural selection

    o Four billion years is a long time.  Even 600 million years is a long time.

    Your argument comes from "personal incredulity."  I recommend you read

    Campbell Biology, 7th edition or newer

    from cover to cover.  It's a good background in biology and topics of evolution.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 2 months ago

    You don't know biology or math well enough to make that argument. Suffice it to say that any rarity problem is made up for by the sheer number of critters that have ever been born.

  • 2 months ago

    How many of these "positive mutations" are actually the intermixing of various hominid species? That would easily account for these supposed mutations.

    • Anonymouse1 month agoReport

      lol wut dafuq did I just read

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.