Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because it was a full creature in its own right. Your question is kind of like asking how a half-zygote half-toddler could become an adult. You’re mixing things up and it creates a nonsense question, which is why it seems absurd. A better question is “How did a creature with an adaptation that gave it a slight edge over others of its species survive?”
 
I don’t know what’s more stupid… a rodent becoming a Whale …or a Dinosaur becoming a chicken …thoughts ?
 
And something like 90% mutations are detrimental. Of those remaining most are neutral. And a rare amount are immediately beneficial.

Examples with humans.
Ex 1: An extra copy of a chromosome gets introduced. Odds are this will kill the newborn child and not get passed on. (Case of detrimental.)
Ex 2: The child has attached ear lobes. This doesn’t have any survival detriments so the child can pass those genes on, but it doesb’s have any benefits so it’s not going to get passed on better than detached ear lobes. (Case of neutral.)
Ex 2a: A child in 1 AD is born with proteins that are good for resisting bubonic plague. At the time this has no benefit or detriment so it gets passed on, but not at any greater frequency. Later a descendant of this child in Dark Ages Europe has this mutation and it helps them survive the plague so they pass it on while those without the mutation die off and don’t pass on their genes. (This is also how most of evolution works. The environment changes and those individuals that happened to have some mutations that end up being beneficial survive while others die.) (Case of neutral that layers turns beneficial.)
Ex 2b: A child is born in 1 AD with a gene that makes them more susceptible to Black Death. They aren’t experiencing detrimental so they oass it out but their descendants die off. (Case of a neutral that’s later detrimental.)
Ex 3: A child is born with a mutation to survive plague in Plague Europe and survives to pass on their genes. (Case of immediate benefit.)
 
Let’s call it Techoquestion absurdum . 😉 I’m talking about the general principles here.
 
Dinosaur becoming a chicken. Now we know that dinosaurs tasted like chicken. 🙂

Ed

It’s obvious, right?
 
Let’s expand on that.
  1. Animal dies before passing on ‘useful’ trait.
  2. Animal becomes/is sterile via disease or by having a bad trait.
 
edwest211 said:
Dinosaur becoming a chicken. Now we know that dinosaurs tasted like chicken. 🙂

Ed

It’s obvious, right?
Click to expand...
But, whales don’t taste like rodents…evolution is always throwing us curveballs. 🙂
 
Last edited:
I suppose I could’ve been more thorough by adding those examples. Fair enough. But my general point still stands.

@Buffalo With your point on embryonic mutations, again something that could add more thoroughness. But my point still stands.
 
It is assumed. Each creature was fully functional. We don’t have any bones for all the failures evolution produced. It must have. It has no goals.
 
Techno2000 said:
Why did evolution cause dinosaurs to become Birds ?
Click to expand...
Why are the animals of today’s world different from creatures living millions of years ago?

Could it be that they have changed?
 
Last edited:
I’m gonna shake the dust from my sandals and climb back up the tree from which my ancestors descended (and figuratively ascended). Wake me for Part 5.
 
A good number of animals are currently on the list for extinction while others have become extinct in our lifetimes. These animals of the past 50 years are gone and left no animals just like them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top