Bolder-dash writes:
I assumed you could tell, because you are the one that has the theory that they exist-the basis for all of life in fact. I was so naive to think that since they are the foundation of your theory, you knew what they looked like. Touche, Docteur A! Morsure extraordinaire!
Just because we know that many small mutations can lead to large scale changes, doesn't mean we can point to a single one that is responsible for the creation of a new organ. Because that's what you want, isn't it? You want us to identify ONE mutation responsible for producing, say, a new liver or a spleen where there was none earlier. You are assuming that there is ONE starting point, when in reality, many many mutations have been involved in bringing about the structures in modern humans.
In an earlier thread RAZD and I were explaining to you how the evolution of wings or gliding membranes would have occured. You completely refrained from rebutting my post and instead engaged in a pathetic ad hominem. But that's not the point.
The point is, the evolution of wings is a good example of how new structures evolve*, because of its initial simplicity. I'm no biologist, but webbed feet and hands occur commonly enough among humans that I suspect growing some webbing is as simple as a single mutation. To a human this is hardly beneficial, but to a tree dwelling animal like a squirrel, a bit of additional webbing may boost its chances of successfully leaping to a distant tree and escaping predators. If squirrels that can leap long distances are selected for, then additional mutations may be selected for, further improving the shape and span of the web (as well as any other adaptations that make gliding easier). By the time the squirrels are gliding through the trees, it may be impossible to say exactly which mutated allelle was the starting point. It may in fact have mutated again, in which case the "starting point" is lost.
It's like going to an old temple and asking, "which stone was laid first?" We know that the temple was built by people placing stones one at a time, and the fact that we can't point to the "starting point" does not alter this fact.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
*More accurately, how old structures are modified
ABE:
A bit of advice. I notice how you have a persistent tendency to engage in ridicule, rather than actually discussing the points raised in the posts you respond to. I do my utmost to remain civil in my posts, and I suggest you do the same if you want people here to respect your opinion. Your posts are also a lot clearer if not phrased in a sarcastic manner. Remember, in a debate, losing one's cool is a sign of weakness
Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
