cpthiltz,
Why is there hardly any evidence in the fossil record of the millions & millions of complex organism with failed mutations?
You say "hardly", that means you know of some, so please provide a complex organism with a failed mutation.
Evolution brings order out of chaos, the chaos must leave behind some "mess" surely? - this "mess" being millions of recorded failed mutations within the fossil record.
How would you identify an organism that had a genetic problem causing proteins to function at less that efficent levels or not at all? How would you identify a fossil that was unnattractive to the opposite sex?
Can the lack of evidence prove evolution is not a driving force in life as we see today?
No, because natural selection is ultimately about relatively passing on more genes to the next generation than an organisms contemporaries in any given population. The vast majority of negative mutations that have a phenotypic effect will do so at the molecular level & will either ensure the organism doesn't get born at all & will have no chance of entering the fossil record anyway. Or will have a "condition". How would you identify a ciliac in the fossil record? A sickle cell anaemiac? Cystic fibosis? Porphyria? Having extra chromosomes, eg. Kleinfelters, Triple X? Phenylketoneuria? Tay-Sachs? Turners syndrome? Padi-Willi Syndrome? The list of possible mutations that negatively affect an organisms chances of surviving until breeding age, or making it pug ugly to the opposite sex are limitless, & none of those mutations will end up in the fossil record.
The whole argument is a red herring.
The problem is that your good self & the articles authors don't understand evolution. You seem to think that "failed" mutations cause gross
physical defects & yet allow something to reach adult size then die & enter the physical record. Ain't how it happens.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : spelling
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
™ Version 4.2