RE: Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court
April 11, 2013 at 2:49 am
(March 31, 2013 at 12:18 am)Aractus Wrote:(March 30, 2013 at 1:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: You're having a discussion with a person who feels that separating environmental results from evolutionary results is a coherent position......No you're a moron. I was pointing out the fact that the environment that bats live in dictates how developed their eyes get. If you keep a human child in darkness for the first two years of their life - they will never, ever, be able to see. Eyesight isn't purely genetic, it's also environmental. The same is true of smell. We don't typically develop our sense of smell very far; but we could if the environment fostered it, and that requires (again) no change in genetics. If the behaviour of bats suddenly changed, and they were no longer nocturnal, then they'd be able to see. Evolution wouldn't have any work to do, because you only need the exact same animal in a different environment.
(March 30, 2013 at 12:51 pm)Sagasa Wrote: But evolution is just change. An organism suddenly mutates in a small way; maybe it's beneficial, maybe it's harmful, maybe it's benign. Maybe a small burrowing rodent is born with a defect: non-functioning eyes. Since it lives by burrowing into the ground, it doesn't need its eyes that much in order to survive and propagate, and may even derive a small benefit from them.Aha, I see where you've gone wrong. You think that DNA mutations drive evolution. As I've pointed out, this theory has been tested for a good 30 years now. Most DNA mutations are unhelpful or harmful. DNA mutations alone are not a strong enough force to drive meaningful change in populations and achieve more structured, more complicated organisms. It simply isn't at the root of how evolution works.
Species has in fact evolved to be largely resilient of DNA change. Look at how many different characteristics we have as an example - height, skin colour, eye colour, hair colour... yet for your theory on Evolution to be correct only the most beneficial DNA mutations should have survived - all the other ones should have been squeezed out of the genome.
no they shouldn't have. who told you that? species evolve to be resilient to DNA change? right that's we can observe crossing over happen.....heterozygote advantage is something to look up by the way. might help you last bit.
