Quote:
Originally Posted by cody
You're just gonna have to deal with the fact that I get most of my science from from TV since I graduated from Junior College, but I'm still going to post in this thread. 
Aren't there a multitude of examples where animals have evolved? Aren't there moths and flies that have such short life cycles that by simply changing their environment, their color or their wings change accordingly, etc? I just saw a show this week where they showed a bird that only lives in Hawaii and they showed the bird it supposedly evolved from and their bills were complete different due to the food sources available in their respective environments. Is the National Geographic channel lying to me?  |
That's ok, I don't mind about the tv thing, as long as you can admit that is where you get your information (and you have). Now we are getting to the real issue...those examples you mentioned are what is known as MICRO-evolution in the science world. A much better term would be pre-programed adaptation. Those very minor changes are already part of their DNA code, so it would not really qualify as evolution, in the Darwinian sense. Your moth may get larger or smaller wings or maybe even a slightly different color, but in the end, it is still a moth. This kind of adaptation is the only "evolutionary" feature that is actually observed in nature and can be verified in a lab...therefore, is real science. However, an evolutionist will always use these micro adaptations as their evidence that one kind of creature evoloves into another over time (called MACRO-evolution)...which is something that has NEVER been observed in nature. They also expect to use this "evidence" to also try to convince you about the other 4 kinds of "evolution...cosmic (origin of the universe), stellar (origin of stars), chemical (self explanitory), and organic (origin of life). none of these forms of evolution have EVER been observed in nature nor have they ever been duplicated in a lab...therefore, not real science. And to answer your other question....yes, National Geographic is lying to you, maybe not on purpose, but the information is deceptive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cody
And Joel, I imagine that mutations are actually encouraged by evolution, since they are part of the recipe. Mutation is a trait just like any other that evolution controls. If there weren't mutations, we couldn't evolve. And don't let language like, "encouraged" and "controls" bug you. It's not intended literally, at least to me. Evolution is a force of nature and is lifelike so it's easy to speak of it figuratively. Also, it's hard to identify mutations because they are slow gradual processes. Fish don't just sprout legs overnight. But slowly over time, they do.
|
As I mentioned before, mutations do not create any new genetic coding in the DNA. Fish don't sprout legs no matter what because the genetic coding for legs doesn't exist in their DNA, and a mutation would not create it from nothing. A leg on any creature would only form if the genetic "blueprint" already existed in the DNA. If the code ain't there, nothing happens. Mutations are DAMAGE to existing DNA. Look at it this way...slamming your Subaru into a wall will damage it, but it will not make it sprout wings and become an airplane eventually. Sorry for the crude example, but it fits. Mutations are not "traits", they are screw-ups. They are the result of DNA copying mistakes and environmental damage. They are not beneficial...ever. They are, in fact, easy to identify because they always do something bad to the creature that develops them.