Posted on 10/23/2011 7:15:22 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
I contend that maybe it did [evolve into another creature]. The resistant kind.
So using that exact same logic, an albino or a hemophiliac isn't a homo-sapiens but is another species? Are you going to go against all biologists and claim that a poodle is not a dog because it has less genetic information for a dog than a mutt?
If you believe that a mutation is proof of Evolution, then you are a neo-Darwinist, which ironically enough was debunked back in 1967 at the Wistar Institute as a mathematical impossibility by a group of hard-core evolutionists and mathematicians.
The simple argument goes like this. A mutation has the odds of 107, which is rare but not that rare when you have a large population of reproducing cells. But for a series of mutations it becomes 1014 for that next one and for four mutations you need 1028 mutations and the world isn't large enough to contain all of those mutations, and even with billions of years there would never be enough time. So how did scientists explain how certain organisms developed immunity to four different kinds of man-made toxins? They quickly came to the conclusion that neo-Darwinism, or mutations plus natural selection could not explain evolution, and because they refused to even consider Creation, they left with no answers.
But mathematical impossibility is not really the best refutation, rather observational science serves better than your speculative non-science. The fact is that mutations are not beneficial. Mutations are corruptions in the genetic material, not improvements. This is observed by the fact that many diseases and cancers are formed by mutations, and I don't know anyone who thinks cancer is "evolving upwards".
Here is a thought experiment for you. Go stand in front of an operating X-ray machine for hours until your cells start to mutate. Do you suppose that prolonged exposure will transform you into a higher-level being? If not, why the cognitive dissonance?
Where did I claim that it was another species? ( HINT: I didn't).
I said it was a different creature. As in, "has different traits".
Sorry I wasn’t able to continue the discussion yesterday.
There is more genetic difference between an African bushman and a Norwegian basketball player than there is between a bed bug not resistant to pyrethrins and one that is.
Are the 2 human examples still the same species? or are they both evolving into something else?
Most mutations are neither positive nor negative. Whether a mutation is harmful or helpful depends on the environment. We are already seeing this with antibiotics - those that were considered no longer useful due to “evolved resistance” are being used again as current bacteria are resistant to newer antibiotics. It becomes a hysteresis loop, which is decidedly not evolution. Mutation does not result in an increase in information, which would be required.
The Peppered Moth is a good example of this. They have gone from light-colored to dark-colored back to light-colored as a response to the environment in the U.K. during the Industrial Revolution. Of course, no evolution occurred - the environment determined that a specific coloration let them avoid being eaten. That’s all. It provided no other benefit. Evolution isn’t merely selecting a characteristic (or rather having the birds select it for you). Evolution would be an effective defense mechanism against the birds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.