An interesting flaw in evolutionary thinking

[busmaster11]

<< Doubt is good, but let me ask you a question. Cave fish are born without eyes, although they have a structure (socket & tissue physically resembling an eye) where an eye used to be. Without evolution how would you explain why the cave fish appears to have had an eye? As another example, whales have a pelvis and leg bones. Why would a whale, a water born mammal require a pelvis and leg bones? >>



I believe in Intelligent Design, that is, creation by a Christian God. I don't claim to know the role evolution plays, but I do believe that none of it comes about without a God.

So if you can step into my shoes for a new perspective, I pose a question to you. If I am right, how much would things be likely to change? How would organisms on earth diversify? Would God decide to use a separate and unique and vastly different design for each class of creatures he creates? Or would he use a similiar blueprint that is adaptive and efficient for just about everything. Except for snakes, (some of which do have vestiges I think) all animals amphibians and above have the same basic template of a torso, a head, and four limbs. Some have adapted to walking, running, climbing, flying, swimming, whatever... If it works fine, why break it in favor of something totally off the wall? An eye socket is just something all vertabrates are born with - if thats the template God chose, why take it out? There could be structural or acoustic reasons for the design, not just to put an eye in.

I believe a lot of the evidence we see in the fossil record are just what seems to be the most down-to-earth conclusions we can draw from our observations. But if God did have a role in it, my point is the observations we see in nature aren't likely to change much. Intelligence - it is counter-intuitive to think that animals become dumber as they evolve. All other traits - Again, _IF_ I am correct, how would things change? Variances between similiar creatures in the fossil record and/or in the wild - you can observe similarities, but just because you have an animal with for example, a more curved beak and a fossil similarity with a less curved beak, doesn't mean that the latter evolved into the former. It may just be simple variances in nature that accounts for it and one reached the end iof its evolutionary path and the other didn't.

 

[Rakkis]

BoberFett

There is a general misconception about DNA shared by those not in the field. Our DNA is not a novel. One does not read it word-for-word from beginning to end to have a coherent whole.

In fact, most of our DNA (i think i've read figures in the 80+ percentile) codes for nothing. It is here, were no 'proof-reading' is done when our cells replicate that most mutation occurs. Since these changes happen in DNA that is not translated into proteins, mutations here tend not to have any effect whatsoever in the organism.

In order for a protein to be translated from DNA, the machinery that does this looks for certain sequences that say "start-translating-here" as well as stop sequences. The lack of the former, and the many stop codons (3 base pair sequences - the reading unit of DNA) prevent these vast tracks of DNA (the junk DNA mentioned above) from being read.

Another source of mutation is cell division (in germ line cells - sperm/ova). When a cell divides, everything that makes the cell tick has to be reproced. This includes the DNA inside. So... proteins go to work and replicate the DNA in a cell that's undergoing division. Sometimes they make a mistake. And this mistakes evades maybe 3 or 4 (maybe more. i think those are the one's we've recognized so far) levels of error correction and proof reading. However... let's say this did not happen and we have a perfect copy. The DNA then has to be pulled to opposite ends of the cell before the cell splits into 2. Without giving you a lot of gritty details... there are structures in a cell called centromeres that do this... before they start pulling though.. the DNA is arranged in the middle of the cells. and then pulled away from it's copy towards its respective end. When lined up, the chromosomes sometimes exchange small pieces with each other. (another source of change). sometimes (the case in down's syndrome) they do not separate.. and both chromosomes end up going to one of the new daughter cells. when this germ cell with *2* copies of achromosome joins a normal one.. the result is one that has 3 copies (in our case of chromosome #21).

 

[PistachioByAzul]

This is the background of science. The absolute insignificance of the Human Race.

I think the denial of that is the fundamental essence of literal religious interpretations. Significant, insignificant, they're both incorrect, it's relative, it's just a word.