Hi Tyler, welcome aboard!
tyler writes:
The evidence shows that mutations do not produce the kind of genetic variation necessary for the appearance of these novel organismal features.
What evidence would that be?
Even if they did, how do we account for many of the delicate, finely-tuned processes that exist at the biochemical level? (such as cellular respiration, mitosis, the Kreb's Cycle, etc.)?
Descent with modification and natural selection.
Obviously these processes can't come about by natural selection of mutations, since "cellular respiration" doesn't have anything to "mutate", if you catch my drift. How can variation of biochemical processes come about?
Descent with modification and natural selection.
Obviously something is missing here.
Yes, your understanding of the power of descent with modification and natural selection.
However, it seems that right now we simply don't have it all figured yet, despite claims to the contrary by many close-minded Darwinists.
Claims of "we don't have the real answers yet" deserve little attention in the absence of alternative proposals.
The webpage you're drawing the Lynn Margulis quote from,
Neo-Darwinism: The Current Paradigm, part of the
Cosmic Ancestry website that advocates panspermia, contains numerous inaccuracies. The author, Brig Klyce, has a weak grasp of his material.
If panspermia is where you're going, it doesn't answer the questions you raised about the origin of such things as the Krebs Cycle and so forth.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
