Observed data shows it doesn't happen. But add millions of years and it does. Not very scientific.
Flying = trait.
First creatures cannot fly. We now have ceratures that can. Where did the flying trait come from? Mutations cannot account for it alone.
Dinosaurs and Evangelism
Quote:Original post by Marcus Speight
Observed data shows it doesn't happen. But add millions of years and it does. Not very scientific.
There's evidence using bacterial colonies (which have a much faster rate of evolution than human beings for some complex reason that I forget; it's probably related to the much higher rate of mortality) that traits are indeed a result of DNA mutation.
Again, I'm not a biologist -- I just took an anthropology class wherein my eyes glazed over trying to understand DNA and RNA from the textbook. The biological implications of evolution are easy to understand; the theological implications are not because if evolution is correct, we can make a case for the belief in God being a result of random mutation favouring those who believed in a God and reducing theology to a chemical reaction driven by a need for survival.
FYI, dogs won't sprout wings from DNA mutation -- a massive error in encoding like that should be prevented by DNA-copy redundancy and is unlikely to propagate to the foetus. Smaller errors, such as those that produce genetic traits, are more difficult to error-correct, hence why evolution must occur over a long period of time. I can send you links to the various resources on mutation at the DNA level to explain more.
Quote:Original post by Marcus Speight
But all observed data shows that natural selection does not create new traits in creatures.
Of course it doesn't.
Mutation does that.
Quote:Original post by wahoodraQuote:Original post by MachairaQuote:Original post by wahoodra
The Bible got it totally wrong, and here are proofs.
Uhhh, how are those proofs? [rolleyes]
My statement obviously included a bit of tongue in cheek, however I'd like to know: if they are no proofs, then what exactly are they for you?
Ummm, just what they say "Creation Myths"?
Quote:Original post by Marcus Speight
Observed data shows it doesn't happen. But add millions of years and it does. Not very scientific.
Flying = trait.
First creatures cannot fly. We now have ceratures that can. Where did the flying trait come from? Mutations cannot account for it alone.
have you read the thread?
this has been addressed several times.
if you're expecting to see a dog spontaneously be born with a wing or two, then you need to go back and read some more.
Quote:Original post by Marcus SpeightQuote:Original post by Mithrandir
You really have no idea what evolution actually is, do you? That's okay, most people who refuse to believe it don't.
Do you?Quote:From TalkOrigins.org
The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolutionQuote:
And without evolution, would you please explain to me how there came to be so many species of Dogs if they all came from one Dog? Huskies make sense, wolves and dogs. But Chihuahuas? Poodles? Where did they come from?
Do you know what a species is? Chihuahuas& Poodles are the same species just different breeds.
I stated that creationists have no problem with creating new species. It happens. It has been done in a lab. But all observed data shows that natural selection does not create new traits in creatures.
How do you get new traits in creatures?
And WHERE did all of the genetic information for those different species come from?
Without evolution, there is no answer.
You can't keep breeding two of the same breeds and produce a new breed without some sort of evolutionary mutation going on.
And new traits just don't appear in observed lifetimes. Just so you know. You can't say "I've been breedin dem durn dogs fer 20 years and none of dem durn things ever larned how tuh fly! Therefore evolution is WRONG!".
Good God.
Quote:Original post by Marcus Speight
Observed data shows it doesn't happen. But add millions of years and it does. Not very scientific.
Just comming out one day and saying that isn't scientific, true.
Unfortunately for you, we have fossil records showing this happened. Observing fossil records is scientific.
These theories didn't just magically appear in the minds of people who one day decided that they didn't want to believe in a fictional invisible guy in the sky. These theories came about because we keep seeing things that tell us that this is what really happened.
Quote:Original post by fadilthrejkQuote:Original post by Marcus Speight
Observed data shows it doesn't happen. But add millions of years and it does. Not very scientific.
Flying = trait.
First creatures cannot fly. We now have ceratures that can. Where did the flying trait come from? Mutations cannot account for it alone.
have you read the thread?
this has been addressed several times.
if you're expecting to see a dog spontaneously be born with a wing or two, then you need to go back and read some more.
I've never expected a dog to be born with a wing. But wings have to come from somewhere. You would say a mutation creates something that may become a wing after multiple generations. But natural selection would remove it as what use is half a wing.
Quote:Gould, Stephen Jay, The Return of Hopeful Monsters, Natural History, June/July 1977
"What good is half a jaw or half a wing?"
Quote:Original post by Marcus Speight
I've never expected a dog to be born with a wing. But wings have to come from somewhere. You would say a mutation creates something that may become a wing after multiple generations. But natural selection would remove it as what use is half a wing.
Let's assume there is a dog with a prototypical wing.
Natural selection is not an active process; it is our terminology for an observed behaviour of nature. If all of these winged dogs were somehow more vulnerable to predators, then it's unlikely that mutated gene would be propagated over time. If the wings give the dog an advantage for the individual in the current environment, then it's more likely the dog will survive and propagate the gene.
Survival is generally independent of suitability, so it's possible that a dog with vestigal wings would survive just fine whether or not he had the wing, but breeding still would carry the gene forward. Over the course of further minute random mutations, it's possible that the genetic drift (another useful term) would favour dogs with wings, and so we would have a breed of winged dogs after thousands of years. Genetic drift is why we have diseases like sickle-cell anemia in individuals from lands where malaria is common; individuals with it are selected as they have a significant resistance to malaria as a result.
Does this sound like a logical plan a human-like intelligence would produce for maximum efficiency? No. Does it work? Yes. Have we observed it in bacterial cultures and fossils? Yes.
Quote:Original post by Marcus SpeightQuote:Gould, Stephen Jay, The Return of Hopeful Monsters, Natural History, June/July 1977
"What good is half a jaw or half a wing?"
Maybe you should try reading Gould instead of quoting him out of context like it proves something.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
