Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

How did you determine that mutations were not responsible for the appearance of feathers in dinosaurs? There are plenty of examples of feathers in non-avian dinosaurs by the way. Also, if the fossils we have do not meet your standards then please tell us what a real intermediate fossil would look like. So the millions of mutations that separate humans and chimps are not responsible for the differences between humans and chimps? Really? And this is a problem how?

I wasn't aware that Shakespeare was found in the genome of any species. There are a lot of CAT's and TAG's, but no ROMEO or JULIET.

That's why you need a selective pressure. If you kept all the random mix of letters that did make words and re-shook all the ones that didn't, eventually you would have enough words to at least make some line from Shakespeare.

How do you know?

nice to here a evolutionist admit the vast difference in the genetic code between the chimps and us chumps.mutations lead to loss of function. wingless beatles etc. they can be advantagious but are inverably in the opposite direction of your theory.Try your examle from before in reverse. Take two poodles add and a bunch of genereations and I'll even through in an intellegence in the breader and see if you can ever get back to the wolf.once the genetic information is lost it is gone chance and time will never bring it back.

That's a good way to ignore the evidence. Well, not a good way, but probably about the best you can do.All those intermediate forms between basal theropods and modern birds ... yeah, that probably is the best you can come up with.But perhaps you could fill us in on the details of your delusion. In what way would it be "more art than science" to observe that (for example) Archaeopteryx has teeth and gastralia but no synsacrum or pygostyle? The aesthetic element to which you allude escapes me. And yet we can watch this happeneing. Are you denying the existence of mutations now?

Funny you should mention wings... we've seen that they've been lost and reemerged in one group of bugs.I'm just going to take the rebuttle to this from one of RAZD's previous posts:From Message 104

quote:

---

Fascinatingly, we have samples of this actually occurring:

​

Newsroom - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis

quote:

---

Walking sticks regained flight after 50 million years of winglessness
Maxwell and his collaborators at Brigham Young University discovered that some species lost the ability to fly at one point of their evolution and then re-evolved it 50 million years later.

---

​

And it is not just ONE such instance, but several. See Figure 1 from Nature 421, 264 - 267 (16 January 2003); doi:10.1038/nature01313 (reproduced below)

​

Walkingstick insects originally started out as wingless insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.

​

And some gained wings (red). And diversified.

​

And some lost wings (blue again). And diversified.

​

And one gained wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).

​

So again, how does each of these mutations involve loss of information?

---

HUH?What genetic loss of information?Maybe it is a language problem again.Do you think the difference between a wolf and a puppy doggie is that the puppy doggie somehow lost some genetic information that was in a wolf?Are you thinking about the creationist nonsense of some super genome or that things devolved from some perfect state?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

To be precise, about seven million years' worth of difference, given the measured rate of mutation. Which fits nicely with the fossil evidence.If you enjoy hearing evolutionists "admitting" that the predictions of the theory of evolution are quantitatively correct, then stick around, you're going to love it here. If reciting creationist dogma magically made it true, then creationists would win arguments. But it does not, and merely announcing your inaccurate beliefs is not the same as arguing for them.We can watch genetic information being "brought back" by "chance and time"; for example in the Ames test, to name just one prominent example of reversion.But a man who refers to mutations as "mythical" will doubtless have no trouble ignoring the existence of reversion.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Nice chatting with u all. Got to run back to real life. maple trees to tap. I got to hurry though before they change into pines just wouldnt taste the same.

You seem to be arguing from a belief in some mythical "fall."Your argument is not supported by real world evidence.Mutations can be deleterious, neutral, or beneficial in relation to a particular environment.Of course, if that environment changes the deleterious, neutral, or beneficial has to be reevaluated in light of that new environment.For example, the mutation for light skin would be deleterious in Africa, while it was highly beneficial in moving into and north of Europe during the recent ice age.And you are not looking at just one mutation at a time; each generation has hundreds of mutations.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What, I thought this was an open site for debate. what makes me a troll. I think the evidence points to design you do not. I enjoy this type of debate that is why I am here. challenging myself to look up new information and see how it fits my beliefs.name calling shows your true collors my friend. Alot of scared people on this site. to bad have your debates amongst yourself.

Hi Havoc, welcome aboard!By chance you seem to have begun your participation at EvC Forum in the only unmoderated forum. This thread is in the Free For All forum, and there's no moderation here, except for some occasional checking that the threads remain at least somewhat on-topic. If you'd like a more focused discussion you might try one of the threads in the Science Forums or in the Religious Forums, where moderators tend to place the emphasis on evidence-based discussion and on following the Forum Guidelines.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Vast? We are talking about a 2% difference for point mutations and a 5% difference when considering insertions and deletions. That is hardly vast. There are hundreds of thousands of mutations that separate one human from another. So what functions are we missing compared to chimps? Due to the accumulation of random mutations it is impossible for evolution to run in reverse. You might as well expect rivers to start flowing uphill. Why would evolution need to bring it back?