Evolution for Dummies and Christians

Hi, thure, and welcome to the forums. This is simply not true. Evolution does not rest on the fossil record - it never has. The primary evidence for evolution is the observation of small changes over generations via mutations (an easily observed occurrance in the laboratory) and the similarity of features over multiple species. There is, in fact, abundant evidence for the gradual change of one species into another. The fact is, every feature of every species in existance is a slightly altered version of the same feature in another species. The similarities are stronger and more frequent the closer related the species are. It is these similarities, and the gradual flow from, say, the cecum of the alimentary canal of many mammals to the appendix of humans that provides evidence of common ancestry.To say that "macroevolution has never been observed" is also false. If "macroevolution" is defined as the descendants of one species no longer being able to interbreed with that species and thus becoming a new species of their own, then we have observed it several times. Here are a few examples, from Creationtheory.org.:

quote:

---

1. Primula kewensis was speciated from Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda in 1912 by Digby via hybridization and polyploidization.
2. It was shown that you could reproduce the existing species Tragopogon mirus by hybridizing Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon porrifolius, as demonstrated by Owenby in 1950.
3. In 1969, Pasterniani demonstrated speciation (as defined by reproductive isolation) via artificial selection rather than hybridization. He took two existing varieties of maize, planted them in a field, and over a 5 year period, selected only kernels which were not interbred for the next year's planting. At the end of this 5 year period, the plants' natural likelihood of interbreeding had been reduced by an order of magnitude.
4. In 1983, Macnair and Christie were able to show that varieties of the Mimululs guttatus flower which had developed a tolerance to copper were no longer able to breed with varieties which had not developed this tolerance.
  —"Creationtheory.org"

---

These are just a few examples of "speciation events," where the progeny of one species is no longer able to breed with that species, yet still produces viable young amongst its own population. True to an extent. After all, both tarantulas and black widows are spiders. Of course, they are also entirely different species. What you just described in your fruitfly example is the first step towards the generation of a new species. The new population can still breed with other fruitflies - but if they were seperated from other fruitflies for enough generations under different envireonmental conditions, eventually the populations would no longer be able to cross-breed - a new species would have arisen. This is what we have seen in the examples I just posted.The "adaptation to the environment" you speak of is evolution. The seperation of "microevolution" from "macroevolution" is an artificial construct completely made up by Creationists as a way to basically say, "yeah, but..." Scientific papers do not speak of micro- or macro-evolution. It's the same mechanism, the same process, and there is nothing to seperate the two. It would be like differentiating walking ten feet from a thousand miles, and calling one micro-walking and the other macro-walking. It's just walking - there is no difference except one of scale. One man's opinion does not a scientific theory make. This is called an "appeal to authority." Quoting what other people say is so without any actual argument is a logical fallacy. You need to provide proof to form an argument. You can't just say "Oh yeah? Well this guy said so!"Besides that, he is obviously wrong. Evolution by mutation guided by natural selection is stronger than ever, with a growing mountain of evidence in support of it. The theory of evolution has certainly not collapsed since the 70's. Again, you are using an appeal to authority fallacy. This is no argument - this man simply says "it's not so." Prove it.While you gather your evidence, consider this.The fossil record is by no means a complete timeline of events. It's a series of snapshots through history. Fossilization is an incredibly rare event - no paleontologist in his right mind expects to find examples of every species that has ever existed in the fossil record. But the snapshots we do have fit 100% with the predictions of the theory of evolution. Evolution predicts that no feature should be unique, that each feature should be a slightly different version of the same thing on another species - and that's exactly what we find. The similarities, for example, between many dinosaur species and modern avian species is remarkable. Archeopteryx, while an often-used example, is a perfect snapshot of a species with both dinosaur features and avian features. We don't see the complete chain from dinosaur to bird because fossilization just doesn't happen often enough to reasonably expect that - but Archeopteryx is a perfect snapshot of a species far closer to modern birds than other dinosaurs, but retaining dinosaur features as well. This is exaclty what we would expect if evolution were true.To disprove evolution, if species really did "suddenly appear" as you claim, we should see species whose features are wholly unique, and not simply altered versions of the same features on other species. We should not see vestigial organs like the human appendix which serves no good purpose and bears a high risk of infection. We should not see whale bone structure than is indicative of a whale ancestor that actually posessed legs. Etc. The Big Bang is, indeed, on similar footing with evolution. We have observed the universe as it existed in the past just a few million years after the Bang itself. We have observed the structure of the mocrowave background radiation, whose structure and mere existance fits perfectly with the theory of a universe expanding from a smaller, more dense, hotter version of itself in the past. We have observed the redshift of stars and galaxis moving away from each other at fantastic speeds, proving the expansion of the universe. Yes, the Big Bang and Evolution are considered scientific theories rather than mere hypotheticals or hunches for a damned good reason - al of the evidence observed thus far has abcked them, and no evidence has surfaced to disprove either, despite numerous rigorous atempts at falsification (remember that falsifying widely-held theories is the quickest and most effective path to fame and fortune in the scientific community - scientists are encouraged to disprove theories, becuase the trial by fire is the only way to sort the accurate descriptions of the universe from guesswork and imagination). More to the point, we can see and mesure it happening, right now. Just as we can with universe exmapsion and evolution. Sorry, Thure, but this statement is false. Evolution is supported on every scale, whether generational changes within a species or gradual changes that, over time, result in the development of a new species. Scientists have and will continue to look for evidence which disproves evolution, because that's the only way we can ensure that we have an accurate view of the universe. But evolution, so far, has made predictions that have been wholly backed up by observable evidence.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

The issue here, Thure, is that your expectations do not reflect reality. We have done experiments regarding this in the past. We have observed the formation of new species. There is no arbitrary limit - and you're just claiming that you "expect that there is one" without showing what the limiting factor is.I'm afraid you're arguing from ignorance and projecting your personal expectations as fact, and you're flat wrong.I posted several examples of "speciation events." A species is typically defined as a population that breeds true with other members of the same population, but cannot breed viable offspring with another population (though it's not a great definition - some creatures we define as seperate species can interbreed). In other words, a horse and a pig cannot breed and produce offspring that can breed offspring of their own - thus they are of different species.A "speciation event," then, is the proof of "macroevolution" that you are looking for. It would be defined as the observation of the descendants of a population no longer being able to breed viable offspring with that population - then the creature's great great ad nauseum grandchildren cannot breed with members of the ancestor's species.The example I gave:

quote:

---

In 1983, Macnair and Christie were able to show that varieties of the Mimululs guttatus flower which had developed a tolerance to copper were no longer able to breed with varieties which had not developed this tolerance.

---

demonstrates exactly that. The descendants of Mimululs guttatus flowers who had developed a tolerance to copper could no longer breed with emmbers of the original population. A new species, by the previous definition, had been formed.Your "expectation" of some sort of arbitrary limit is irrelevant. All that matters is observation - and we have seen new species arise directly.You will no doubt contend that this is simply "microevolution," and an example of the "small adaptive changes" that all species can make. But this would be wrong. The new population can no longer breed true with the original population. They are an entirely different species, despite their other similarities, in the same way that a tarantula and a black widow are both different species of spider. An intelligent designer who simply uses the same parts over again would not include such vestigial organs as the human appendix, which actually poses a significant danger to the life of the organism. It serves no real purpose in the human body, and can be removed without altering the life functions of the patient. The same can be said of the vestigial wings of ostriches, the hind leg bones in whales, the erector pili in humans (the miscles that put our hair on end, giving us the useless "goosebumps," which in other, more furry mammals gives a larger and more threatening appearance), the human tailbone (obviously reminiscient of the actual tails of other primates, but not formed fully in humans), the fish Astyanax mexicanus that has eyes but goes blind before its egg even hatches, human wisdom teeth, the sexual organs of dandelions (who have the sexual organs of other flowers, but reproduce asexually and don't ever use them), and sexual behavior in certain whiptail lizards where there are no males in the population, all individuals of the species are female (again, a species which reproduces asexually - they just have "fake sex" - a vestigial behavior). Whew. Sorry for the absurdly long sentence, but there are many examples. These are obviouslty not examples of some designer re-using parts in various creations, thure. They are either useless or downright harmful - they exist only because they have been passed down by ancestors, the most distant of which actually had working and necessary versions of the same features.If the "pot maker" was re-using parts, why not give bats feathers and a more efficient wing structure? Bats can't fly nearly as well as birds - why not re-use that feature? Why give humans and other mammals eyes that have a literal blind spot where the blood vessels that feed the tissue block the retina, when octopi and other species (including birds) have entirely different eyes without the blind spot? Octopi even focus their vision differently - if humans had the same eye structure, I wouldn't be wearing glasses right now. Why woudln't the designer use the good parts?No, the "pot-maker" analogy doesn't fit with reality, either, thure.As far as similarity proving common ancestry - we aren't just talking basic similarity, thure. I'm talking about organs which are identical in structure and placement, but are not used by one species and are necessary for the survival of another. Ostriches don't use their wings at all, but their structure and placement is identical to the wings of chickens, who use them for quick escapes and very short-distance flight. Their wings are also identical in placement and structure to other birds who actually fly. There is a clear diverging branch in ancestry where certain birds lost the power of flight, and yet their wings remain.The evidence for evolution is mountainous. The only people who believe evolution to be inaccurate are Creationists, not scientists (except in a few instances where a "Scientist" is willing to put his religious beliefs above scientific observations, and thus destroys his credibility).I'm sorry, ture, but evolution is a highly accurate description of the mechanism by which new species form. You may not want to accept that personally becuase of your preconceived religious beliefs about a Creator, but you'll never prove evolution wrong by saying "God says so" or "this guy said so" or "I expect we'd find this" with no actual evidence to back your claims.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Apparently you haven't the slightest clue how mutation works. The copper resistant plant is an example of a mutation. That mutation differentiates that plant from it's parent population, and it can no longer breed with them. It can breed with other copper-resistant plants. It's a new species, if the definition of species is "a population that can interbreed within itself but not with other populations." You don't need to do a full genetic map to know that a certain population of the plants has a gene that provides resistance to copper, and that singular difference is all that matters. Yes, the new populaton is incredibly similar to the original population - but becuase the two populations can no longer interbreed, the new population is an example of a new species.And of course the new population falls withing hte geneology of the parent polulation! The new species is the direct offspring of the original population! But they are also a new species, wholly seperated from interbreeding with their ancestors. What's your point here? We have two seperate species of plant that are nearly identical except for a resistance to copper, and the fact that they cannot interbreed (which is the defining point that seperates them as two species).If you disagree, then you apparently don't accept the common definition of the term "species." What definition are you using? Again, you demonstrate a total lack of knowledge of mutation and genetics. Yes, the mutation, the genetic difference, existed before the insecticide killed off the non-resistant population. But you seem to be approaching mutation as some sort of a "willed" process, where a population will "try" to adapt to an environmental hardship. This is not the case - mutation is wholly random, and consists of very small changes. SOmetimes, by pure chance, a small change will alter the very specific feature of an organism that an environmental change, like, say, a pesticide, attacks - and thus it will no longer be lethal to the population that has the mutation.For more information about mutations, take a look at this thread: Some mutations sound too good to be true. There is an excellent discussion going on with a wealth of information about mutations being provided, often in very simple terms, some of it posted by people who actually work in the field and have observed the mechanisms of mutation personally.thure, you are arguing from ignorance and again putting forth your expectations rather than actual facts and evidence. I'd like to ask that you stop, do some research, and back up your claims with fact rather than what you assume or expect would happen given a certain set of circumstances.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

That's exactly the case, thure. You're right. But that in no way shows that the daughter population is not an entirely new species. The fact remains that the daughter population, the population with a resistance to copper, cannot breed with the parent population of plants without that resistance. The inability to cross-breed is the commonly accepted definition of the seperation of species! The only way to argue against this evidence is to claim that the two populations are not a seperate species, which means you must be using a different definition of the term "species" from the rest of us. Please post your definition of species, so that we can move forward. Irrelevant. The relevant facts are these: there are two populations of plants, one the direct descendants of the other. The new population has a resistance to copper, a mutation, and it is also unable to breed with its parent population. That is all that matters, thure. Killing off the parent population is irrelevant! A "reduction" of the gene pool by killing off one population has nothing to do with the fact that, by the commonly held definition of a species, the two populations belong to different species. I'll say it again: that's the very definition of a species! One population cannot interbreed, is sterile, with the other population, but it can still interbreed with members of its own population. By the definition used by biologists, this is an example of a new species arising from a pre-existing species. The only way you can refute that is to use an entirely different defintion of the word "species." What definition are you using? If you are going to redefine words as you go along to prevent evidence from contradicting you, you are guilty of moving the goalposts.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Hoo boy, david12, that's one hell of a broad post. That's good. 7-day Creation is just silly, scientifically speaking. The fossil record is not the direct evidence ofr evolution. The fossil record consists only of supporting evidence. Evolution describes the mechanism by which new species arise from pre-existing species through a slow process of gradual genetic change called mutation, guided by the process of natural selection. Evolution predicts, based on this, that every feature of every species shouls be a slightly altered version of the same feature on another species. Further, the closer two species are related, the more similarity they should have. This is based on observations of now-living species - the fact that humans have a tailbone and an appendix, two vestigial organs used by other species but not used by humans. Other species obviously have other examples of such similarity of features - flying insects have two pairs of wings, but not all of them use both pairs for flight. Flies use their second pair as a sort of natural gyroscope to stabilize their flight, while beetles' second set of wings are more solid and are used as a protective covering. Whales have leg bones, indicative of a land-based ancestry (and, indeed, land-based creatures have been found int he fossil record with decidedly whale-like features). Every feature in every organism is shown to be a slightly different version of the exact same feature in a pre-existing organism - no feature is truly unique.The fossil record simply supports this with additional examples. Because the process of fossilization is such a rare occurrance, we cannot possibly hope to have examples of every species that has ever existed. The so-called "missing links" of evolution, where we have enough examples to show a line of evolution but not every single step along the way, is exactly what we expect, because we cannot hope to find examples of everything using the fossil record. Instead, fossils show us "snapshots" of moments in time. We will never see the complete chain, but with enough of these snapshots we can have enough points to plot the line, to use a geometry analogy.Archeopteryx is likely the most often used example of a "transitional species" (though, becuase all organisms exist between their ancestors and descendants, all organisms are really transitional). Archeopteryx has feathered wings, and a bone structure very similar to modern birds. But it also has many dinosaurian features, such as teeth, that are more "primitive" than modern birds. It's an example of a snapshot in time, a single species that existed partway between certain dinosaurs and modern birds.Archeopteryx, of course, is not the only fossil evidence for the transition from dinosaur to bird. THis site shows that certain dinosaurs had a nearly identical lung structure to modern avian species - a feature that, until recently, was touted by Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents as "impossible to have evolved" and unique.Obviously, they were wrong.Also, many dinosaurs have bone structure, particularly their hips, which are decidedly birdlike, and not reptilian.The fossil record is full of such examples, and in some instances (such as humans) we have an excellent chain of evolution observed in the fossil record. Creationists tend to dismiss these chains as "incomplete," because every single generation is not represented in the chain - there are jumps, and they insist that the so-called "missing links" do not exist. However, here in reality, we understand that we could never hope to find examples of every single generation in the evolutionary history of an organism in the fossil record, because the fossilization process is just too rare. *sigh*This is one of the most tired and blatantly false Creationist arguments. The Creationists who use it don't understand entropy and thermdynamics.If this argument were valid, then none of us would exist. You begin as an egg in your mothers womb, and grow in complexity until you grow into an adult. This is obviously not increasing the entropy of the egg!You simply aren't thinking this through. Yes, the universe is a closed system, but the entropy of the universe is increasing. The solar system, on the other hand, like your mother's womb, si not a closed system. The Earth receives input energy from the sun, just as your mother consumes food for additional mass and energy for the egg to use in its grouwth. The sun will eventually die out by running out of its nuclear fuel, and the Earth will no longer receive its energy - the total entropy is increasing. It is easily shown that bits of order can appear in total chaos, so long as the total closed system increases in entropy at the same time.You don't really think that scientists would just overlook one of thier most widely accepted laws, do you? Evolution obeys the laws of thermodynamics perfectly. I'm sorry, but the thermodynamics argument is simpley a strawman fallacy, a misrepresentation of the actual law of thermodynamics. Who said they ever didn't exist? Modern theory suggests that the universe log ago existed as a massive Singularity - all of the energy, space, and matter existing today existed in a single point, and expanded from there. But since time is tied to space, and thus also existed as a single point in the Sngularity, there was no "earlier time" to define a "before" to the universe.The idea that there had to be a "cause" for the existance of matter and the universe is a construct of religion - there is no evidence to suggest that the universe need have any "cause" at all. In fact, by definition, the universe has existed for all of time, becuase time is part of the universe.In any case, the Big Bang is irrelevant to evolution. Evolution only covers the mechanism by which pre-existing species give rise to new species through mutation guided by natural selection. That's all. Even if the Big Bang were disproven tomorrow, Evolution would still stand - and vice versa. This argument demonstrates ignorance as to the actual evolution of optical organs. Darwin himself laid out a path for the evolution of eyes a hundred years ago! Just becuase a feature does not function as an eye does not mean it is not a precursor to modern eyes.To illustrate: There exist organisms who posess crude photoreceptors. They aren't true eyes - they simply detect the presence or absence of light. Other organisms have photoreceptors in a slight depression, allowing them to detect the presence of light in a single direction. Note that, so far, we have incredibly primitive forms of "vision," but all are useful to an organism. Later organisms have photoreceptors in depressions, but the depressions are filled with a fluid for additional protection (like the vitreous humor in human eyes). Still later organisms developed additional photoreceptors, allowing very fuzzy vision.Etc. etc. A "partial eye" may not be as useful as an eye, but it's better than nothing, and we have a very clear path of evolution from simple photoreceptors up to modern eyes. Every component does not need to be present for a primitive version of a modern organ to be useful in survival. Animals have been shown to posess emotions, too, you know. Including what could be called love. If you told me my cat didn't love me, I'd tell you you were crazy.Remember that not all features need to be selected for by killing off populations that don't posess them. Sexual selection is likely the most powerful form of selection acting on humans today, since modern medicine and technology allow us to survive environmental disasters, predators, and diseases far better than our ancestors. Social evolution is also a factor - a society that espouses anarchy is not likely to survive long. They'll kill each other while the more ordered societies survive. Appeal to consequences fallacy. Just because you don't like the supposed meaning of a theory, doesn't make it not true. I don't like that the Holocaust happened - that doesn't mean the Holocaust denyers are right. This is a logical fallacy, and as such is irrelevent to the validity of evolution.Besides, evolution doesn't exclude any sort of spiritual existance for humans or even other creatures. Spriituality is simply untestable, and not the realm of science. All we can comment on are physical observations made with the human senses. As such, evolution is a highly accurate model of the way life changes and new species arise. To say otherwise is to say, basically, that black is white, and that the observations made by scientists simply didn't happen.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

If a species is defined as a population that can breed and produce viable offspring within itself, but not with other populations, then YES, the copper-resistant population is a seperate species. But that's not what we say at all. If the new population is unable to bred with the previous population, they are a seperate species, one that is well-adapted to a copper-rich environment. Much the way that horses re well-adapted to plains, and mountain goats are well-adapted to mountainous terrain. You're confusing your definitions. A species can undergo changes and remain the same species, yes - just look at all the different races of humans, or the different breeds of dogs. But if a population can no longer reproduce with a previous population, they are a different species. To be blunt, who cares? Diversity is not a requisite of evolution. Poorly adapted species are expected to die off more readily than species resistant to harmful environmental variables. A loss of genetic diversity in the "grand scheme of things" is irrelevant.They are a subset only so far as they are closely related to the parent population, becuase they are the direct offspring of the parent population. But becuase they cannot interbreed, they are a different species! Now that they are reproductively isolated from the parent population, continued genetic drift and mutation will further seperate the new populations descendants from the original population, produceing eventually some larger differences. But all of this is irrelevant - the only relevant fact is that the new population cannot crossbreed with their ancestors, and thus constitute a seperate species. Apologies if you feel I have been "venemous" in my posts, but I assure you it's not my intent. I will, however, point out when someone does not understand a theory they are attacking, and I will point out arguments from ignorance. These things create strawman attacks and a frustrating wall of willful ignorance when not pointed out, and my intent is solely to help educate you about the theories you attack. After all, if you attack a false representation of a theory, you really aren't disproving the real theory.Again, not trying to be mean or venemous. I seek only to debate the topic with you, and correct any false representations of theories made. Don't take it personally, please - most Creationist websites, and thus the vast majority of places Creationists will find their info, are filled with ignorant misrepresentations of evolution and other scientific theories. It's not your fault, or of any other of the posters on this board, but no honest debate can proceed using strawman attacks.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

In the example we've been using, one species is resistant to copper, and the pre-existing species is not. How is that not an increase in genetic diversity?Remember, we aren't looking for anything to suddenly spring into being - that's the realm of Creationism, and it's just plain silly. Evolution predicts that "new" features should simply be slightly modified versions of already existing features. The resistance to copper is a minor change in the makeup of the plant, but it was also NOT a pre-existing but "de-activated" gene in the original species.It looks to me like we have an increase in diversity here. Whether the old species dies off or not is irrelevant. So, you're moving the goalposts. Now, you say that "evolution happens, and new species arise, just not new families or at the genus level, because that's what I consider a species." In other words, you're going back to the tired old Creationist "Kinds" explanation. Why should we use your made-up definitions? Biologists use a particular definition for the word "species." The example given shows a new species arising from an old species, according to that definition. You can't just go and switch the defnition when you don't like the evidence. Yes, though somehow I doubt you understand what a mutation is, except as the popularized but inaccurate strawman of mutation.Mutation does increase genetic diversity, from the perspective that it allows features to be slightly modified over many generations until the features are markedly different from those of their ancestors.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I didn't miss it, thure. The consideration of whether the original population survived or not is irrelevant. We don't know what happened to them all in any case - certainly, the entire species was not wiped out in the experiment! But even if they had been, the extinction of an ancestor species in no way invalidates the fact that the copper-resistant population is a new species, and thus is a direct observation of evolution in action!If humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, and that ancestor is now extinct, the logic you are using would mean that both humans and the other modern great apes are all the same species. That's simply not the case.If population A cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring with population B, then populations A and B belong to seperate species. If population B consists of the descendants of population A, then we have an example of a speciation event, where a new species has evolved. Wheter population A is rendered extinct after the fact is simply irrelevant. No insult intended, and I apologize if it was taken as such. Creationist websites, as well as the average layman's understanding, woefully misrepresent mutation and evolution. Your previous posts suggest to me that you may consider one of those misrepresentations to be the actual theory.Perhaps I could rephrase:What do you think mutation is? Why do you seem to think that mutation does not add genetic diversity from the perspective that diversity consists of slight alterations to pre-existing features? Am I incorrect, and that is not your position at all?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

thure, I'm sorry, but this statement is flawed from the outset. You are, in effect, saying "I don't know what the evidence or mechanism are, but I know they aren't right." You're starting from a conclusion (that "it doesn't happen that way") and working backwards (trying to explain away evidence you aren't yet aware of, and thus could not possibly be in a position to understand its validity or falsehood).As for the explanation of mutation and how it works...in-depth, that's the topic of another, ongoing thread, which you can find here. Some actual biologists are posting there, and they give an excellent overview on the actuall mechanisms of mutation and how it really works.A very basic description would be that our DNA does not self-replicate perfectly, for a variety of reasons (including environmental factors like ultraviolet radiation, etc). The changes during replication are very, very small, and often have no real effect on the organism. Occasionally, however, a very slight change in the genetic code and produce a different protein, for example, than the species typically uses in a particular way. Such a change, in this example, could cause a strain of bacteria to be highly resistant to a certain antibiotic that attacks the typical protein, but not the accidentally miscoded new one.DNA is made up of a chain of combinations of only four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). Different combinations in certain orders code for different proteins. Replication errors can include a chain of ATG, CTA being miscoded into TGC, TAG simply by missing the replication of the adenine base in the first sequence - this can fundamentally change an entire sequence of proteins with only a minor error. Similarly, a mistake in replication could cause the code for "stop" to be coded where the chain was supposed to continue. Bear in mind - this is an overly simplified example.In this way, simple replication errors can make entirely new combinations and thus increase the diversity of the gene pool. In the example of the copper-resistant flower, a single protein was likely altered by random mutation, and the new protein does not react with copper like the original. Note that I'm guesing in this example, and only using it as an illustration of what mutation actually is and what its effects are.Over many, many generations, these replication errors can add up to make significant changes. It really is very much like a game of telephone - simple errors int he repetition of the original message will, eventually, result in the message being almost completely altered from the original. The difference is that living things will rarely have only a single offspring and exist as multiple populations (allowing for "branching off," so that evolution results in a tree structure rather than a simple line of descent), and the alterations are guided by natural selection so that more beneficial changes will thrive while others die out (either due to predators or simply competition for resources with better-adapted species).Evidence for mutation can be observed in many places, but the easiest is the example used in the first pages of the "Some mutations sound too good to be true" thread that I linked to: bacteria. Bacteria reproduce very quickly and, more importantly, asexually. Without mutation, every bacteria would simply be a clone of its parent. Experiments with bacteria involve using a single bacterium, just one cell, and growing a very large population from the individual organism. Then, an antibiotic is applied. Most die - but a few are resistant, and some are even immune! These resistant and immune bacteria similarly pass the new traits on to their offspring, showing that the resistance/immunity is genetic. Since bacteria reproduce asexually, the only way a genetic immunity could have formed is by a replication error - otherwise they would all be genetically identical and all die.Does this help explain mutation? I tried to be brief, and I think I've failed in that, but is there anything in this evidence that does not involve increasing genetic diversity? So long as you undertand that we are talking about baby steps, and not an organism suddenly being born with an extra limb, I don't think this evidence is possible to refute.Biologists in the house, please feel free to correct me on any errors in my understanding of genetics.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Incorrect. Evolution predicts that new features should only exist as modified versions of pre-existing features. There is nothing new or unique, and nothing arises from nothing. Mutation is a series of baby steps that adds up to very large differences only over a large number of iterations - just like walking will eventually take me to another state. I don't think you're stupid, thure. I just think that you're conclusions are putting the cart before the horse, so to speak, and are based on definitions of evolution and mutation given by Creationist sources, and as such have been misrepresented to you, just as the typical Creationist arguments put forth on various websites.Saying that you are wrong, or pointing out the flaws in your logic and mistaken conceptions of the theories being argued does not mean I think you're an idiot. We have shown you. Copper resistance is a mutation that added diversity tot he gene pool - the resistance did not exist in one population, but some of that populations descendents developed it via mutation and formed a new species. Bacteria that, through mutation, develop resistance or immunity to antibiotics add diversity to the gene pool. These are well-documented, observed examples of new features rising out of old features through slight modifications - mutation. HOW? You accept that mutation exists - what mechanism do you propose that prevents the slow, gradual process of mutation from causing new species to develop from pre-existing species? Especially in the face of evidence! I think it's time for you to pony up your own proof. You've made a lot of claims and presented your "intention to show that it doesn't, cannot" account for the origin of species, but you haven't shown us any proof. I and others in the thread have done our research and legwork to show you the evidence - it's time for you to refute us with evidence of your own or conceed.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.