mutation disproved Darwin's natural selection theory?

Question

Darwin Wrote if my theory be true numberless intermediate varieties linking most closely all the species of the same group together must have existed consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.Scientist have done numerous experiments on mutation and found that it damages DNA,so lets say that eventually the DNA changed mended its self or became new there would be freakish circus freak half bear dolphins and half deer giraffe running around in different mutated stages and as Darwin said himself about mutation and how things evolve their existence would be found in fossils.Has anyone discovered the bones of a half deer giraffe creature?Why do we not see the fossils of these transitional forms?

Answer 1

Oh, please, you're embarrassing yourself. At least try to learn biology to GCSE standard or better.

1. Darwin was the first person to propose a fully-rounded theory of evolution by natural selection (though others had previously mentioned similar concepts in fragmentated hypotheses), and it was necessarily a little rough around the edges. It has been improved on a bit since then (though certainly not altered beyond recognition). Try reading something more up-to-date sometime.

2. "Scientist [sic] have done numerous experiments on mutation and found that it damages DNA" -- not necessarily. Some mutations are beneficial. This, in fact, is the crux of the matter. Most mutations are either harmful or neutral.

"so lets say that eventually the DNA changed mended its self or became new there would be freakish circus freak half bear dolphins and half deer giraffe running around in different mutated stages" -- you clearly don't understand how DNA works. Cell division can produce imperfect copies of the original DNA, but these tend to be self-correcting. *Every* cell in an animal's body would have to undergo the *same* mutation in order for it to change into a different animal.

Dogs and bears share a common ancestor; but both dog and bear DNA are different enough from their ancestor's DNA, thanks to the cumulative effect of many tiny mutations over successive generations, that neither is going to revert suddenly back to it.

3. "Darwin said himself about mutation and how things evolve their existence would be found in fossils.Has anyone discovered the bones of a half deer giraffe creature?" -- There would be many, many intermediate forms between a deer and a giraffe (if they even lie on the same branch of the evolutionary tree; of which I am not certain, but let's suppose for argument's sake that they do. It wouldn't invalidate the argument if they didn't). The earliest ones would most like deer. The later ones would look most like giraffes. Since there must be some environmental selection pressure going on (otherwise the mutants wouldn't have any better chances than the original deer and the mutations would be diluted, not reinforced) we could expect that the whole process would be quite sudden (at least in evolutionary terms).

"Why do we not see the fossils of these transitional forms?" -- What Darwin actually said was that the *only* place that recognisable transitional forms would be observed would be in fossils. And unfortunately, not every creature which ever lived will be so considerate as to leave its mortal remains in a neat pile for scientists to study one day in the future.

Answer 2

Well I k now this is a troll question but to clear up some issues

1) we DO have transitional fossils
2) You don't understand what a transitional is
3) mutation is USUALLY bad and they die off but the good ones remain to breed.
4) DNA is very resilant to change...I mean human DNA has 2 pairs that fused making our count 46 pairs instead of 48...worked ok..we didn't die.

Answer 3

You dont understand what mutation is do you. Rather than fight back, I shall quote you a definition of Mutation:

"In biology, mutations are changes to the base pair sequence of the genetic material of an organism. Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division, by exposure to ultraviolet or ionizing radiation, chemical mutagens, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as hypermutation. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germ line mutations, which can be passed on to descendants, and somatic mutations, which cannot be transmitted to descendants in animals. Plants sometimes can transmit somatic mutations to their descendants asexually or sexually (in case when flower buds develop in somatically mutated part of plant). A new mutation that was not inherited from either parent is called a de novo mutation."

Answer 4

According to the writings of Zeharia Sitchin, there are ancient drawings depicting chimeras (?) being brought into existence by the Anunnaki (Anachim) scientists Enki and Ninharsag. But that was the trial and error before they "jumped the gun on evolution" and fashioned the adamu ("primitive worker"). I don't think natural selection would be too abrupt as to produce chimeras.

Answer 5

DNA damage is one of a number of processes that leads to mutation. Darwin did not postulate of the mode of inheritance.

We don't see any of your transitional forms, because your interpretation of the process has nothing to do with reality.

Answer 6

I am no atheist or agnostic...but I do believe in intelligent design...and I also believe that you need to look more closely at evolution and natural selection.

Mainly, not all mutations damage DNA...some are very beneficial, and those are the ones that become prominent.

Keep questioning and learning.

---Good Fortune---

Answer 7

Just a quick note.

I'm fed up of people acting as though Darwin is still the authorative figure to quote when discussing Evolution. At the time, the theory was still very much in its infancy.

Answer 8

Wow. Your not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?
You need to first understand micro-evolution within species. Only then does changes slowly start to take the form of macro evolution into new species.

Enjoy reading!
=)

Answer 9

Occam's Razor can't really disprove anything, its only a principal. Plus, "Explanations must not be multiplied beyond necessity", i think the argument is that the complexity is necessary. when they say "explanation" they mean a "physical explanation". and it seems by this logic that no explanation at all is simpler than saying "God did it", so nothing was ever created.

Answer 10

We have moved on a little since Darwin.
Go read a slightly more modern book on evolution. I'd recommend "climbing mount improbable" By Richard Dawkins.