Creation VS evolutionary theory VS things you can observe?

Question

If mutations are the mechanism that slowly adds genetic information then why can a snake mutate a second snake head, but not mutate chicken wings?

A snake already has genetic information to grow a snake head, but chicken wing DNA he aint got!

Where is the example of this added genetic information in nature?

Frogs can grow a third frog eye, Cows can grow five cow legs, and kittens can mutate and grow two cat heads. In nature it seems that mutations only utilize the genetic information that is already present.

Before you comment on my ignorance, YES I do a lot of reading regarding this subject. Thus, I don’t care if bacteria can now eat nylon. Show me the MONEY!!!

Answer 1

Big D I am a Creationist! Consider that the vast majority of mutations are admitted by the evolutionists themselves to be bad. Furthermore, it has not been shown experimentally that mutations and natural selection can produce new organs. Limited changes have been observed in many species, but that does not prove that these species could evolve in millions of years into entirely different kinds of creatures. Big D Scientists merely assume that this happened in the past when no scientists were present to observe the process. Geneticist have concluded that the vast majority of mutations are bad. Sir Julian Huxley estimated that perhaps less than one-tenth percent of all mutations could be advantageous to an organism. Bear it mind this cannot be quantitatively demonstrated by experiment however.Of the remainder some are apparently neutral, but the large majority either weaken or kill the individual. The pressures of the environment also lower the ability of organism to reproduce itself. My argument in summary that there is no evidence that a mutation or series of mutations has ever created a new structure or organ. Theorists are still arguing, conclusions on mutations are inadequate as well as chromosome changes. For the most part the source of new genes have not been established.

Have faith Big D in God!

Answer 2

Actually, the DNA to code for just about everything, including wings, is there - that's why our DNA is so similar to all other creatures. Growing a second head isn't a mutation in the DNA, there's no code for that - it's a fusing of embryos in the development stage. That's not a genetic mutation, and it can't be passed on.

Answer 3

Creatures evolve to terrific suit their surroundings, if by devine layout the might have been *waiting made* Too many cutting-edge-day species own anatomical anomalies(eg. the whales hip bone, The appendix (caecus) in people) this might practice a gentle evolution the place particular anatomical good factors are surplus to the species needs, yet might desire to have had a function at some diploma of their progression. A God, in seeing the errors, might have *erased and re- drew the blueprint) Human DNA is in simple terms approximately same to primates and maximum "quadrapeds* giving a link decrease back to a unmarried ancestor from which all different species stepped forward. A god might have not made only 1 creature in basic terms to revisit the paintings and upload many million different species. that would desire to be a under appropriate plan and so ungodlike. the belief of evolution is cleary supported and shown by the fossil records, DNA diagnosis and persevering with evolutionary adjustments in species. the concept that devine layout produced all life is in simple terms that, a concept and and as yet, keeps to be completely unprovable.

Answer 4

For a guy that does "a lot of reading regarding this subject," you are woefully misinformed about evolution. I rather think that you haven't actually read a real biology book, but rather read the *science* books offered at your local Christian book store.

Further, you ask questions that are beyond the limitations of this question and answer forum. Therefore, I concluded that you are not really looking for answers, but rather want to feel smug with atheist and scientist can't answer the question to your satisfaction in a 1000 words or less.

The answers you *seek* are in any number of good text, many of which are available in your local library. Go and check a few out. Read something written in a credible journal. I include a link that I am sure you are not interested in because you are not interested in answers.

Answer 5

Well you got it wrong in para 1, natural selection adds genetic intormation, mutations just CHANGE genetic information, big difference.

You might do a lot of reading but it is clear you do not understand much of what you read, that is assuming you are reading real science not the creationist propoganda.

Answer 6

Your looking for proof of evolution?

I don't think evolution states that evolving creatures blend DNA of different species.

Has man gotten taller in the past 100 years or so? Look at the average height of a man during 1850 then look at the average for today. Then there is the human hobbit. Google it if you don't know. Then take a look at Michael Moore. If that's not human + mammoth DNA I don't know what is.

Answer 7

"A snake already has genetic information to grow a snake head, but chicken wing DNA he aint got!"

*drinks*

Answer 8

You don't do that much. At least 50 peer reviewed papers come up on Google with added genetic information. Examples:

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/26/20/4657
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0209-01.htm
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/aminosyn.htm

Answer 9

Maybe you should read this :
U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics

http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html

quote : "Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics..."

*Hoist drink* Cheers

Answer 10

right. everybody, he has done his reading. or so he says.

he thinks evolution is just people randomly getting different body parts found on other animals.


cheers, x theist!