name an observed genetic mutation that added DNA, that actually improved the next generation. A perceived mutation may occur randomly to help a species survive better, that is adaption, not evolution, and results in less genetic material and/or possible variations. Like the giraffe getting taller to eat leaves, that is adaption, not a mutation, and some scientist will call that evolution. Evolution that makes a sponge and fish, a fish into a mammal, would require mutations, and addition of genetic material.
Where is the creature with a retina, waiting for lens to evolve? The logic of evolution is voodoo science. Evolution is all guess work, and occupies a huge percentage high school text books because it is guess work. Needs more emphasis on the physical sciences, and technology.
Originally Posted by lostforkate
My take is that if humans and animals were "evolving" that we would see the evolution more. In other words, we would be studying tons of animal and humans that had similar "evolved" characteristics from any certain community. Otherwise, I assume we would all evolve at the snap of a finger.
The strongest rebuttal I have heard to this is that evolution is so slow that people can't document it.
I can add that when my children came home from school and told me with fear filled eyes that they used to be monkeys, and upon further exploration, I found that no other "theories" were offered, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, the term THEORY was not stressed, the school had their hands full.
It also came out that Todd akin, they guy from missouri who said raped women can make themselves unpregnant is also on the science committee.
Originally Posted by drluv1