in some cases completely genetically unchanged in some of the most primative animals right through to humans?
2007-02-04 12:41:57 · 7 answers · asked by Brendan G 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
"Shut up", he explained.
2007-02-04 12:44:34 · answer #1 · answered by phooey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No creature has identical genetic code with any other except in the case of identical twins and clones. The small changes from individual to individual may create a creature who is slightly more or less successful than others.
For example. You may have been born more attractive than the average which will make you more successful at finding a partner and raising children. The genes which made you more attractive may be passed on to these children and so your genetic line will flourish whereas I have only the old ugly genes and my line will possibly die out.
If the changed genes produce a creature that is disadvantaged from the norm the change is less likely to be passed on because the creature is less competitive with others.
These changes from generation to generation are very small but over hundreds of generations they add up. Parts of systems are maintained because the alternatives are less successful, not because alternatives do not occur.
What I cannot understand is why the concept of creationism is thought to rule out evolution as a mechanism. If we accept that God created dogs but by selective breeding we can produce poodles, terriers, hounds and all the other different strains we can still see the mechanism by which evolution operates and the hand of God in the creation of the whole system. I don't see that evolution automatically means a denial of God nor that a belief in God necessitates a rejection of evolution.
2007-02-04 21:53:19 · answer #2 · answered by John B 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hear that? It's the sound of thousands of Creationists scratching their heads in ignorance of the concept of conservation of systems.
2007-02-04 20:54:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That's easy. Evolution did not happen!
There's no such thing as "primitive" animals. This is simply an evolutionary-loaded word to use. If the universe is young, then it fits with reality to know that there are "living fossils" with us.
2007-02-04 20:55:11 · answer #4 · answered by Seraph 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think your vocabulary is far too advanced for creationists.
2007-02-04 20:44:45 · answer #5 · answered by Nowhere Man 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the system is good, why change.
2007-02-04 20:46:01 · answer #6 · answered by RB 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
if it aint broke
dont fix it
2007-02-04 20:44:26 · answer #7 · answered by Peace 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋