Evolution & Mutation in front of our eyes

-http://www.answers.com/topic/evolution

Yes. Those are examples of evolution. A new version. A new combination of characteristics. A new shot at making a better mousetrap. If this new version proves to be an improvement, it will have increased chances of survival and subsequently, increased chances of mating.

It's set of characteristics will be passed on and mixed with another set. Again, a new version. Characteristics taken from both parents and put together in a new way. Again, improvement = survival = mating. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Those are EXTREMELY small steps, but we see them everywhere. Eventually, small steps add up to large steps.




Taken from: Re: How can genetic mutations change the n chromosome number of a species?

"When complex eukaryotes like humans replicate, we create specialized cells ("gametes", known as sperm and ovae) that have half as many chromosomes as the rest of our cells. Instead of having a pair of each chromosome, these gametes only have one of each chromosome. Gametes form to fuse cells that have pairs of chromosomes, half of each pair comes from a sperm, and the other half from an ovum. When new chromosomes are being made, on very rare occasions, the new copies will fail to separate (or "disjoin") from the original copy. When this happens, one gamete will get an extra copy of the chromosome that failed to disjoin, and the other gamete will get no copy. This is called a non-disjunction. In this case, the sperm that got two copies will fuse with an ovum that had one copy, and the resulting cell would have three copies of that chromosome.

Usually, having an extra copy of a chromosome due to a non-disjunction is fatal, and the cell dies. In the three or so billion years that eukaryotes have been around, some organisms with non-disjunctions managed to survive by finding new uses for the genes on that extra chromosome. Of course, this begs the question of who you mate with when you have a different number of chromosomes, and I will get to that later."

Follow link to continue.

This shows that there in fact can be an increase in genetic information.

Small steps. That's what it's all about.



As we sit, there is no need for a drastic change of that level. We aren't being forced to adapt to a new environment, so there isn't need for change like that.

However, change is still going on. Nature is still throwing the dice. I think the name most commonly attached to these changes are "genetic disorders". Well, at least that's what you call them when nature throws snake eyes. Other times they're called 'special' and 'gifted'. And then there are the savants... you've read stories about them I'm sure.

-http://www.answers.com/topic/evolution

If small steps lead to bigger steps why is there no evidence of such? And why can you not show us this evidence in the fossil record? I can show you evidence to support Scripture which you just deny, and that evidence is pretty obvious. Yet even your own people tell you there is no evidence to support your claims of Evolution. Show us where a mammal had fins in the fossil record. Darwin said we should see lots of them if his Theroy was true. Please show us your facts of science. LOL Your kind of science has little to do with facts, and much more to do with faith and speculation. And this is something you are not willing to admit to yourself, or me.

Your belief of the age of the earth is based on faith, and not science, your evidence for Evolution is not to be found in the fossil record. I don't fear Theories based on speculation and faith. We from the Christian camp agree with your own people which states that proof of Evolution is still missing. Yet, speculate all you want, remember, your sound science is base on faith with no evidence to back it up.

QUOTE=Campbell34;46548]Your belief of the age of the earth is based on faith, and not science, your evidence for Evolution is not to be found in the fossil record. I don't fear Theories based on speculation and faith. We from the Christian camp agree with your own people which states that proof of Evolution is still missing. Yet, speculate all you want, remember, your sound science is base on faith with no evidence to back it up.

As is your faith in a story book steeped in Myth and Legend, with an imaginary character called Jesus as the 'hero'.

'AGAIN' if forward you to this thread, watch and learn.

http://www.conflictingviews.com/t2533/

Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, and Jesus has historical evidence that can be pointed to. Evolution has a Theory and little else. Where can we see the clear record that should be seen in the Fossil record? Show me the mammals that clearly show the process of Evolution. Rember, Darwin said there would be countless numbers of them found (IF HIS THEORY WAS TRUE.) So Numpty, show me these fossils, Evolution had over a hundred years to dig them up. Where are they?

Why would I need the fossil record to show mammals with fins? I think they're called "whales" and "dolphins". I can show you a mammal with wings too. It's called a "bat".

However if it's a fossil you really want... Basilosaurus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is under the class Mammalia.

Here is another link with more information of ancient water mammals: New Fossils Resolve Whale's Origin: Science News Online, Sept. 22, 2001

My own people do not tell me there is no evidence for evolution. One only has to look at the Dover trial to see the evidence. Even the whole flagellum argument brought forth by the ID guys was busted in that case. Evolution's evidence was put forth on the spot, cited by numerous scientists, research papers and records.

The evidence is there, you simply deny it. If the evidence was NOT present, then ID would be in science classrooms in Dover.

? Show me the mammals that clearly show the process of Evolution.

Pakicetus to Ambulocetus to Kutchicetus to Rodhocetus to Basilosaurus to Saghacetus-osiris to Dorudon to Cetotherium to Chordata-Vertebrata(modern whales)

this is just the whale evolution, if you want i can find more if you wish!

I believe we went over Pakicetus before, it turned out to be a four footed structure similar to that of common wolves. It was not an aquatic one. Yet, because it had some details in its teeth and middle ear bones which were a signature of later Eocene whales, National Geographic felt able to call this one the first walking whales. Just one look at the reconstruction of Pakicetus by the evolutionist illustrator Carl Buell will reveal the absurdity terming it a 'walking whale.' If this was not so sad it would be funny. This is what evolution is all about. When you get past all the vodo science, it becomes nothing more than artistic imaginary animals, which are based on a hand full of bone fragments. And when P.D. Gingerich discovered this fossil in 1983 all he had at first was the skull, but then immediately claimed this to be a primitive whale. Even evolutionists admit that the similarities between the two are completely untrustworthy, especially because these similarities can be seen in other terrestrial animals as well. Here again you are seeing National Geographic's tradition of sensational, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism. This is not science.

Yes and talking snakes and the 'fact' that the human race was spawned from two people are truely scientific. Can you explain to us how the population of the world came from two 'Asian' people (though they depicted as white in much Literature) and we are able to have such diverse looks as the Inuits in the Arctic circle, First Nation inhabitants of canada, through to the whites of Europe and the Black people of Africa, the chinese and japanese looks through to the Aborigines of Australia and Moauri of New Zealand. If there is no Evolution then how come we all look Different. Surely if we decsended from to people of the same colour we would all be that colour. Am I wrong or have I missed some great excuse,..sorry,...reason in the bible?

It should be obvious that humans have features built into us that help protect us from the rays of the sun. That is why people from southern climates have a darker skin then people from nothern climates. Also, people that have migrated and mixed with others from certain areas of the world will take on features that are common from that area of the Globe. Over time, you have races that have evoloved because of location. This however is not to be mistaken for FULL BLOWN EVOLUTION. We are humans, and have not evoloved into anything but what we are. And that is why Darwin was right when he stated, (if his theory was correct), we would find an abundance of transitional fossils. Yet, we have never found this abudance of transitionals. And this only proves that Darwins Theory never really happened. Believers in Evolution say they have science on their side, yet, I hear this more as a fading echo. Since the discovery of soft tissue and blood cells in dinosaur bones, and the non discovery of transitionals. Evolution is being exposed for what it really is. And that is, the nearest thing to an Atheist having religion.
To bad they have been worshiping a false God of smoke and mirrors, and artistic drawings of make believe transitionals.

Evolution is evolution, no matter how small or big it is.

Numphy, I strongly agree with you. As you have noticed I do not post evidence of evolution. I am not a scientist. In fact, I drove a taxi in Chicago for over 26 years. However, I believe that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming and that people like Mr. campbell will do anything to disprove it, including fake evidence, sandal, etc. I wouldn't even put murder past them, as they would claim that it was to save souls. There are no laws that protect people from this type of abuse. I have taken the Bible and shown Campbell that it is nothing more than a refection of what ancient people believed, including the belief that the Earth was flat and that mental disorders are caused by demons, not to mention the many condictions. He is so closed minded that he can not see these things. I have many Christian friends including my wife. I also admire the teaching of Jesus. He was the greatest socialist that ever lived, if he lived. Therefore, I get along well with most Christians, as I believe in some kind of mixture os capitalism and soicalism. If this post sounds like I have mixed feelings,I do. Learning,Speech,&Attention Defects | Man with learning disabilities, communication disorders, ADHD, becomes author