Proof of Evolution: Logical Evidence

[FZ+]

That's where mutation comes in.
And even if the characteristic is not immediately visible, it can still exist according to genetics as an recessive allele among minorities of the population. But narrowing down the gene pool by restricting reproduction and cross-overs does indeed slow down adaptability. A recent example is the vulnerability of the banana plant to certain plant diseases due to centuries of asexual breeding by humans.

 

[Another God]

Never heard of Recombination?

Thank you O Great One for challenging one of the premises of my argument. But as FZ has already mentioned, your counter argument isn't correct, simply because it is not the case that no new genetic information comes into the system.

When those two halves of the parents combine to make the children, Recombination occurs, and 'Cross Over Events' can cause the DNA to be moved around in unpredicatable ways. Thse changes can disrupt genes, or just change something which has some sort of effect.

As well as that form of mutation, there are point mutations (where a single base is changed), there are deletions (where sections of bases are deleted), there are insertions (opposite of deletion), duplications (the same section of DNA ss copied and reinserted again) and a variety of other mutation events which can change subtle things, which may have no effect, negligable effect, drastic effects, or subtle effects which aren't noticed until several other mutations have added up on top of them.

I am sure that I did mention mutations in my original argument for evolution occurring, if you do not now understand what mutation is, how it works, or why it is important to evolution, then please, keep asking.

.

Evolution Occurs.

 

[Mentat]

And this ability for mutation (which proves that Evolution happens) can account for the variety of life that we see around us today, but it doesn't have to.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by O Great One
Children receive half of their genetic information from the male parent and the other half from the female parent. No new information coming into existence = no evolution. For example, let's say we hypothetically go to Japan and reproductively isolate those who look asian (black hair, epicanthic fold above the eyes). If they only breed among themselves, their children will also look asian, and their children will look asian, and so on and so on...forever. This hypothetical population (and the human population in general) represents a closed system with no possibility of evolution ever occurring.

Just to add to what FZ+ and A.G. said...

There are many examples of reproductively isolated human populations and each has distinctive traits (e.g., Australian aborigine vs. Pacific islander vs. S. Am. rainforest tribe vs. Inuit, etc.). Note that each variety of human is believed to be tied back to a common ancestor in Africa. I.E., that original population spread out across the world, became isolated from the original population for many, many generations, and then changes in the separated gene pools added up to give us our current variety (races).

IIRC, there are genetic differences in some groups that are not present in other groups. There is some effort to use these genetic markers to trace the past patterns of human migration around the planet.

 

[x-treme]

excuse me!what is the definition of mutation and one more:as far as i know mutations cause diseases...has there ever been proved any beneficial mutation?if evolution choses the strongest why do we still have bacteria...if they got adopted why didn't they do that since the beginning. i don't believe the evolution theory,let me say the truth...too many gaps and too many "probably"...and all is based on mutation and statistics...well,the statistic doesn't prove this theory either as far as i have read...not even for a 100 piece protein...
in every evolution program i have seen they say "it trasformed..."gosh,every one knows that to use that word u include billion of operations inside...and when we talk about genetics we know that a single nucleotide mutation might be mortal...every one of u knows the frame shift mutations and their problems...and all of u know about cystic fibrosis and how it is caused...and a lot of other mutations...did u know that te splicing mecchanism cut the hnRNA of a Blc gene in 2 zones...one of them activates a gene for the apoptosis...the other is a protective one from apoptosis...and many other examples...and just a last question...has anyone of u seen any function inside the cell that seems useless?what about the bacteria or the other animals?they seem just perfect...too much perfect to say that they have been formed due to random mutations...these are the points that make me think that evolution isn't the right one to explain the biodiversity!

p.s:sorry for the mistakes i may have made becouse english is not my mother language!

 

[Moonbear]

Mutation is any change in DNA, and yes, there are beneficial mutations, there are also lots of mutations that have no effect whatsoever known as "silent" mutations.

There are not as many gaps in evolution as you believe, you simply do not know enough about evolution to judge it. Nothing is science is ever proven, but evolutionary theory remains sound and valid and has not been disproven. I'm not going to get into much of a discussion of a thread that you just ressurected from 3 years ago. There are plenty of things for which we do not know the function, but it would be hard to claim it's useless when we don't really know that. Your judgement of something being too perfect, when indeed, there are plenty of mistakes that happen (mutations), is really not good refutation of a theory.