20th December 2005, 4:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 22nd December 2005, 3:48 PM by Dark Jaguar.)
We don't have the tools to actually form any new theories. We can only properly do that when we actually understand the already gathered knowledge. So, you claim mutation always leads to death. Not really. Most mutations aren't even noticable. In fact, the only mutations that matter to evolution are the ones that happen in reproductive cells. Someone who has skin cancer won't be passing on skin cancer.
After the completely unnoticable mutations there are the harmful ones. Good job, except you forgot something. Things with harmful mutations will die out. Every now and then, a mutation actually benefits a creature. THAT is kept. You are refusing to acknowledge that a mutation can EVER be beneficial. Typical.
How exactly is knowledge passed on genetically? Just doing something over and over again and getting better at it, as you put it, isn't QUITE enough. That has to be passed on somehow. The answer so far discovered is through reproductive cells. Reproductive cells are not altered by the brain.
You fatten up a bunch of humans all across the planet and you think that this will create people who are already born beefed up? How did that alter the DNA exactly? Evolution may occur after some time. Perhaps only those with body types that can withstand that without dying of heart disease will survive.
You say you want to see what MY theory is eh? I don't have one! Neither do you! You seem to think you are actually qualified to come up with one but you don't even properly understand the existing theory. Whether it's what I think or what another has come up with is irrelevent. What matters is this. Is the existing theory of evolution, which DOES use mutation as one of the chief mechanisms of introducing new genes, one that accuratly describes what we have found? So far, yes.
Some mutations only affect one gene. Some mutations may actually change the structure of the genome, like mutating a chromosome. Over time, a whole new chromosome may be added to the structure and passed on. Over time, the Y chromosome has deteriorated as it's data has been reduced to only needing a select few genes on it.
You can't seem to imagine how mutation could ever lead to more complex genetic structures, but I've explained it in detail.
And it's a very standard ploy of the intelligent design proponents to say it takes "some type of faith" to think that mutation could be the source of new genes. Well, we've OBSERVED it. Experimentation SHOWS that this is the method and NO experimentation seems to show otherwise.
Again, what predictions does this hypothesis of yours make that we can test for? Where are the tests? Show me the tests!
http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/niches/evo...tion.shtml
By the way, I checked into the ol' croc. It's not so "unchanged for millions of years" as a lot of people seem to think. There are many variations of the croc in fact. In the past there were even herbavore crocs.
Come to think of it, your idea reminds me of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
Which has long since been discredited.
After the completely unnoticable mutations there are the harmful ones. Good job, except you forgot something. Things with harmful mutations will die out. Every now and then, a mutation actually benefits a creature. THAT is kept. You are refusing to acknowledge that a mutation can EVER be beneficial. Typical.
How exactly is knowledge passed on genetically? Just doing something over and over again and getting better at it, as you put it, isn't QUITE enough. That has to be passed on somehow. The answer so far discovered is through reproductive cells. Reproductive cells are not altered by the brain.
You fatten up a bunch of humans all across the planet and you think that this will create people who are already born beefed up? How did that alter the DNA exactly? Evolution may occur after some time. Perhaps only those with body types that can withstand that without dying of heart disease will survive.
You say you want to see what MY theory is eh? I don't have one! Neither do you! You seem to think you are actually qualified to come up with one but you don't even properly understand the existing theory. Whether it's what I think or what another has come up with is irrelevent. What matters is this. Is the existing theory of evolution, which DOES use mutation as one of the chief mechanisms of introducing new genes, one that accuratly describes what we have found? So far, yes.
Some mutations only affect one gene. Some mutations may actually change the structure of the genome, like mutating a chromosome. Over time, a whole new chromosome may be added to the structure and passed on. Over time, the Y chromosome has deteriorated as it's data has been reduced to only needing a select few genes on it.
You can't seem to imagine how mutation could ever lead to more complex genetic structures, but I've explained it in detail.
And it's a very standard ploy of the intelligent design proponents to say it takes "some type of faith" to think that mutation could be the source of new genes. Well, we've OBSERVED it. Experimentation SHOWS that this is the method and NO experimentation seems to show otherwise.
Again, what predictions does this hypothesis of yours make that we can test for? Where are the tests? Show me the tests!
http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/niches/evo...tion.shtml
By the way, I checked into the ol' croc. It's not so "unchanged for millions of years" as a lot of people seem to think. There are many variations of the croc in fact. In the past there were even herbavore crocs.
Come to think of it, your idea reminds me of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
Which has long since been discredited.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)