In deciding not to trust Wikipedia entries, one is implicitly choosing to trust other sources of information more. Short of personally traveling to Tibet and doing your own academic research on the native physiology (which is not a practical alternative for 99.999% of us) what other source can you trust more than a Wikipedia entry to answer the questions addressed by the article that was cited?
The devil will tell you a thousand truths… just to slip in one lie.edwest211:
Darwinists like their word games. Antibiotic resistance is “evolution” and so is humans descending from an ape. They want us to think they are one and the same thing and that since one form of “evolution” is true, then the other form must also be true.
No.Evolution creates random mutations. Lots of them. For example, each human has about 100 mutations. So in a population of 7 billion humans, there are about 700 billion mutations in total.
Not a single animal, but a population of animals; evolution works on populations, not individuals. The adaptation is already sitting there as a currently neutral mutation, one of the 700 billion. As the environment changes, what was previously a neutral mutation becomes a beneficial mutation and natural selection can work to spread it through the population.
Ok …get to the part about how they can create whole new species of new animals.
No… why did the (otter like creature) have to evolve in the first place … did the ocean run out of its favorite food ?Techno2000:
Have you already forgotten our discussion of whales?
rossum
A new species is never wholly new, it always inherits some characteristics from its ancestors. We have the standard tetrapod body plan which goes back a very long way, to Tiktaalik and before.
Your question is answered on the internet. Hint: otters evolved initially as a fresh water predator from land predator ancestors. Did you bother to look for any videos of mink swimming as I suggested?
Evolution can easily explain the origin of, and change (either increase or decrease) in Shannon and Kolmogorov information. What measure of information are you using in this case? Shannon, Kolmogorov or some other measure? If some other measure then please specify an objective measure for that information.
O, here is some detail. Sorry if this is a bit boring. Start with some DNA:
Now that DNA duplicates:
That is a doubling of Shannon information and a 1 bit increase in Kolmogorov information.
That leaves the Shannon information unchanged from the duplication step and doubles the Kolmogorov information from the initial sequence.
Here is an analogy that shows how evolution can produce information. Random variations are like someone asking random questions in the game 20 questions, except that you are allowed to ask as many questions as you like. The questions are of the form “Is this better?” The answers are of the form “no”, “terrible idea”, “a little better”, “much better”, or “no difference.” Even if I have no information to start with, after asking a bunch of questions - even totally random questions, most of which are nonsensical - eventually I will acquire information about what is better. The process of natural selection is like the answerer. It passes judgement on every random variation. Then answer is “remembered” in the inherited genetics, which eventually contains more useful information than it had before.
So, you have no problem with evolution generating information then, but you are shifting your ground from evolution to epigenetics.