JQ: -----My fundamental problem with evolution is that it has yet to be
observed or shown to be possible. And to keep you from hiding behind the
But evolution has been observed and shown possible. Even your somewhat
exotic definition of evolution, the formation of limbs or organs has been
observed. Most relevant here are the fruitfly experiments for instance.
JQ: many defenitions of evolution, I am speaking of what most consider to
be
evolution. This being new organ and limb formation or along this line.
Evolution is more than just the formation of new organs and limbs though.
JQ: Just saying random mutations got us here is on thing. Examining the
biochemical requirements for the formation of any cellular process or
organelle is another.
true but irrelevant for your comments.
JQ: ----Random mutations do happen but these are called birth defects. The
Random mutations do happen. Well that is good. That they are called birth
defects is a misunderstanding on your part.
JQ: creation of DNA to code for new functions or organs or the
modification of
existing DNA via mutations to make something usefull is a whole different
league. If this happened your bodys safeguard against mutations(which is
Is it ? What is different between mutations leading to 'birthdefects' and
mutations leading to 'something useful' ? What if mutations leave the
organism with an advantage ? Why do you insist that the only form of
evolution is the formation of new limbs/organs ?
JQ: very precise) would have to first evolve then evolve back after somehow
improvements were made? Of course this makes no sense. Just the unfolding
of DNA at specific sites is a marvel of its own.
Why would the body's safeguards have to evolve back and forth ? You are
making some interesting assertions but perhaps could you give some
references to research indicating that this is a requirement for mutations
to happen ? After all birthdefects (sic) happen and there was no
requirement for the body to evolve and evolve back after the
'improvements' were made.