Are you serious? If you are trolling, please stop.

If you are serious:

It is true that students of biology, a group of which I consider myself an ameuteur member, look at mutations "all the time". Scientists sometimes study the mutations of model organisms, like drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly), arabdopsis thaliana (mustard plant), and Danrio rerio (zebrafish) in order to understand the workings of human beings. This is possible because DNA is so well conserved.

Scientists will actually purposefully create mutations, such as by knocking out a gene and studying the effects, in order to better understand the way complex organisms function when they contain working copies. But before that was possible, biologists like Thomas Hunt Morgan, who uncovered the independent assortment of chromosomes, the reasoning behind sex-linked mutations, and who founded the wild-type/mutant symbology, resorted to allowing mutations to simply occur on their own.

The mutations TH Morgan observed were not beneficial. In fact, few mutations are. I think this might be the reason you have concluded that all mutations are degenerate. Scientists either create harmful mutations to understand the function of a gene's working copy or they study harmful mutations for the same purpose. This does not mean ALL mutations are harmful. I think that should be pretty obvious.

You clearly did not read my article on evolution.
Read this. Then come back

Also, regarding the evolution of a wing, there was a documentary on the Science channel awhile back showing the progress biologists have made reverting chickens back into dinosaurs. This actually ties into cloning. The reason that cloned individuals are not as fit (we are working on this) is that DNA is a complex structure. Not only does it consist of enumerable interacting genes, it also consists of proteins, methylation, and acetylation that give rise to "epigenetics". The scientists who are working on reverting chickens back into dinosaurs are taking advantage of the fact that when dromeoasaurs (or whatever zoo said) turned into birds, they did so imperfectly. They left behind a lot of functional genetic material that is just not expressed. Artifically expressing the vestigial DNA can recreate something like what would have been seen millions of years ago.

~ Docta' Cscoles

Thank you, thank you so very very much. It's good to have a bit of backing.

~Zoo

Thank you for writing the article...I have read it and left a comment...

I agree with you probably 100% on microevolution...

All my comments refer to macroevolution...



Zoo posts:




Zoo, this dinosaurs (reptile) to birds is all theory with no evidence. The drawings are from someone's imagination. Reptile to bird can't work becasue no new genes can arise due to the genetic barriers.

I understand that since the science of genetics in the mid 19th century that many experiments have been conducted and it's known that a mixture of genes within a particular species can result in differences in beaks, feathers or skin, etc. Here, the basic kind DOESN'T CHANGE becasue no new genes arise and so the accumulation of small changes doesn't give rise to Macro-evolution...and neither do mutations result in macro-evolution.

Docta'

Well, let me know when/if it happens that chickens will be turned into dinosaurs!

Until then, I'm content to believe that God created the dinosaurs and they roamed the earth and remained dinosaurs until they died out...never did they "evolve" into birds...

What if a mutation occured so that a bird expresses the scales on its feet also on its wings. Now what if this new bird happens to fill an available niche in the community that its parents do not fill quite as much, say their scaleywings make them better swimmers. Any of scaleywing's offspring with scaley wings would also fill the niche. But the wild-type chicken would also succeed, filling the original niche. Also, consider that birds with scaley wings that also have feathers on their wings do not fill this new niche. Thus, only scaleywing total mutants and wild-type succeed. Eventually, most of the population will either be scaleywing total mutant or wild-type. Scaleywing females might prefer scaleywing males. Wildtype might prefer wild-type. This is the logic behind macroevolution.

Actually they're drawings from bones that were found.



Hate to be ever so picky but...umm...you can't have a theory without evidence. You NEED evidence to form a theory. It's all part of that scientific method.



You know, just because you say it doesn't make it true.

Endosymbiosis can create a whole new organism by combining two or more genetic codes. Horizontal gene transfer allows some microorganisms to pick up genetic material from the environment(from other organisms). Errors or mixups during cell division can also occur to create something new.

Oh and you want an example of macroevolution? I found a little something while I was digging around:

"Speciation through evolution (i.e., macroevolution) is actually pretty routine in agriculture. Where do creationists believe seedless watermelon come from? Is God creating new ones every generation? In fact, it's pretty easy in the plant kingdom to create a mutation that will breed true, but won't breed back with its parent species. That's the very definition of speciation. That's where seedless watermelon, for instance, come from; from normal diploid watermelon, they selected a tetraploid mutant which bred true. Breed the tetraploid back to the diploid, and the progeny are seedless, i.e. sterile. Again, the definition of macroeveolution." Which came from a Wikireason page: WWW Link

Also I found a whole description of speciation. If you have doubts, then you should probably read this: WWW Link Section 5 details the new observed species.

And I'll leave you to it. I doubt it'll change your mind at all...but please don't go declaring things that simply are not true. Evolution happens both on the micro and macro level.

To say only microevolution happens is like saying that a tree only grows into a sapling and then stops. You know redwoods, right? They come from a tiny seed, but take hundreds of years to acheive their full height. Just because we can't watch it happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Your complete misunderstanding of the concept of evolution combined with your vehement denial is something that puzzles me to no end. All of the evidence and answers you seek are readily available in scientific literature...and yet you persist with these inane talking points that I've literally torn asunder dozens of times already and I'm just a college student for God's sake. *sigh*

~Zoo

Aiight. You'll be the first to know.

I wish they could say all that in English, because it sounds really important.

I get what you're saying here, Zoo, and it's a very important bit of information in the quest for the truth. I'm slightly disappointed, but I'm sure I'll bounce back with some other nonsensical argument about fake fossils buried by Satan.

Technically no plant with an odd number of chromosome copies can breed true. Seedless plants are not separate species any more than a mule is a separate species. But Zoo is onto something. Speciation can occur when the next even number of chromosome copies is reached, and this happens often in agriculture.

Fun Fact: Did you know that every banana you have ever eaten has been seedless. Most banana plants are exact clones of one another.

Bananas are herbs, not fruits...

Whoever told you that is probably laughing his ass off right now.

Regis Philbin on millionaire.

It's a Fruit and an Herb, apparently.

My, you have a fertile imagination!   

OKay. But what scientifically speaking do the bones (fossils) tell us...before someone's imagination painted a picture around them that seemed to sell the tale of macroevolution to anyone looking at the drawings?

The fact is no one has found any transitional forms between the reptile kind and the bird kind. That's becasue reptiles are very specific kinds and birds are very specific kinds and never the twane did meet. The fact is just as with bats and rats, all we find is 100% bird fossils and 100 % reptile fossils. There are millions of fossils and so if macroevolution is true, there should be numerous transitional forms preserved in the fossil record. There aren't any....as far as Archaepteryx, there are plenty of scientists who say it's a 100% true bird.

Remember, too, that bones have been found and scientists have mislabeled them as ape-men. Turns out the bones are either 100% pure ape or 100% pure human.