They certainly do mutate and evolve.
And every dog breeder knows that species can be bred for certain traits.
What the critics of the theory of evoliution will point out, though, is that there is no observed evidence of mutation or evolution from one species into another, at the very least not at a level above bacteria and viruses, in the approximately 150 years since Darwin's theory was advanced. That's enough for thousands of generations of fruit flies, which are apparently the geneticists' favorite experimental animal. Yet no new species have come from it - they're still fruit flies.
I believe that DNA studies may strengthen a circumstantial case for evolution of one species into another one - I hope someone here posts a link on that so we can all learn more . . .
PS I'm glad you're in a happy mood!
2006-09-18 03:28:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Good point. But your example would seem to support creationism as much as evolution. Why? You're right, viruses mutant with great frequency, mutating 100's of 1000's of times in a very short period of time. Yet, in the end, the virus always mutates into another virus. It never evolves into a bacteria or other type of life form.
Creationism does not rule out changes within species but that these changes do not produce a creature moving from one species to another. Evolution maintains that, given enough mutations, eventually a creature would evolve from one species to another.
Which theory does your example best support?
As for the "HEE HEE HEE..." perhaps you are laughing so that you might be laughing with us instead of being the object of laughter due to your ignorance. Too late!
2006-09-18 03:35:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bud 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
The kind of mutation necessary for evolution is a slow accumulation of FAVORABLE mutations. For every successful useful mutation there are thousands of harmful ones which are damaging to an orgnism. G. Ledyard Stebbins observed regarding experimentation with mutated insects: "After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated. They could not compete because they were not improved but were degraded and at a disadvantage." Even if they were beneficial, they can only result in a variation of a trait that is already there; not a new species. It provides variet, but never anything new.
According to the Bible, God created all living things "according to their kinds." The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety, but not so much that one thing can change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this.
2006-09-18 03:42:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think saying that virusus "mutate" or "evolve" is an evasive answer to state that viruses actually develop an immunity against drugs.
Think about it. Why do drug addicts keep wanting more or stronger types of drugs? because after a while, the 'simple' stuff doesnt work anymore. Does that mean their body mutated or evolved? No. Their body develops a tolerance for stuff like that.
Its the same with viruses. Instead of letting your own immune system fight against the bacteria or viruses, people go out and get shots. So obviously, they will be more prone to getting sick because their immune system will be weaker - since it is constantly dependent on external drugs.
In short, you cant say viruses mutate or evolve.
And by the way, I am a creationist - and I do believe that God created all things great and small. But He created all things such that they grow and change over time anyway. Or else, we would all be babies, and not grow into adults.
2006-09-18 03:35:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by hansa150580 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Craigm: Wow, viruses are not "alive" so as that they do no longer look to be subject to evolution? All biotic issues are subject to evolution. I hate to be so bluntly impolite, yet: you're a dumbass. Jenn: Evolution does no longer mean issues grow to be different issues that exist already, that's no longer smart in besides. Viruses evolve, they do no longer in user-friendly terms in my opinion mutate, because of the fact in comparison to a random genetic mutation, an developed viral rigidity won't in any respect produce a "widely used" rigidity-- it is going to in user-friendly terms reproduce itself, or proceed to alter. Flu computer virus #2 won't in any respect back produce flu computer virus #one million. And the reason we are able to handle developed lines with as much as date vaccinations is by using the fact they have all developed the comparable way in line with being subjected to the comparable situations. Edit: as quickly as I say "mutation," right here, i'm making use of it the way the creationists are-- as something distinctive from evolution, no longer a ingredient of evolution. I understand that, technically, all issues "mutate" to adapt.
2016-10-15 03:12:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Did you know that creationists already know that? Its still a virus. It's not the kind of evolution that creationists don't believe in.
HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE.............
2006-09-18 03:29:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
No new information is produced from these mutations. You are using the term evolution in its broad sense, meaning change. The virus are still the same kind as defined in the bible.
2006-09-18 03:31:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by Jay Z 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
They'll never get it. Some will concede "micro evolution", not realizing that is a creationist term, not a scientific one.
Either living populations evolve or they don't. However, it's a fact that they do. The "theory" part is concerns the mechanisms behind the fact. They don't get that part either.
2006-09-18 03:32:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm an atheist, but I just wanted to say that I've argued with a lot of creationists and their usual argument is essentially 'That's microevolution, which is different than macroevolution, and only macroevolution is impossible.'. You can probably expect some of that in the following answers.
2006-09-18 03:29:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Michael X,
You don't even listen to the real scientists.
They know that there is a vast difference to what simple microorganisms do, and what higher life forms have been found to do.
Maybe you should read about your religion before coming here and pretending to know a lot.
2006-09-18 03:31:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋