mutations?

[panislav]

okay, explain this to me: how can mutations make wings and junk? there are no mutant flying pengiuns. what do you do when you get half a mutated wing anyway? pick your nose with it? so much for survival of the fittest..,,.....

 

seriously. everyone says there's all this evidence and crap but i havent seen people coming out of nuclear waste dumps with four eyes. it doesnt happen.

[Daecon]

You're right. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a plan...

[mrburns2012]

I see you're eager to learn something new, so here are some pictures:

 

Mutation makes wings:

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol287/issue5461/images/medium/covermed.gif

(Here's a picture of a normal fruit fly (2 wings))

 

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/12/10/1474/F1.large.jpg

(Here's a picture of a fruit fly when mutations occur (box F, 4 wings))

 

and junk:

 

Polydactyly (human, x-ray): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polydactyly_01_Rhand_AP.jpg

 

If you don't like how scientists explain it, you are welcome to come up with a theory of your own. It'll be your job to convince us why you are right.

Edited January 24, 2009 by mrburns2012

[panislav]

wtf is the flying spagetti monster?

 

 

making an extra wing or finger or arm or whatever isnt the same as making a new limb. but making eyes or something is liek a human sontaneousy growing a radio , it doesn't happen

[Sayonara]

You're right, it doesn't happen. And you know what? Nobody says it does.

 

Hence all you have there is one big fat strawman.

[panislav]

ah. so we never actually evolved eyes, they've just kind of been there.

 

no, seriously. how can mutations make things like eyse and wings?

[Sayonara]

It's not just "mutation" that causes species to adapt. And from reading your first post it is clear that you don't understand what a mutation is in the evolutionary sense. That likely goes some way to explaining your confusion.

 

It's beyond the scope of a discussion forum to teach you evolutionary theory from the ground up, so maybe you could give us a pointer by telling us what your current understanding is?

[mrburns2012]

wtf is the flying spagetti monster?

 

making an extra wing or finger or arm or whatever isnt the same as making a new limb. but making eyes or something is liek a human sontaneousy growing a radio , it doesn't happen

 

WARNING: SOME PICTURES MAY BE GRAPHIC

 

Ok, I'm feeling generous, so let wish come true for today. Here, I give you... new eyes: http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/130/13/2939/FIG5

 

If you're confused, here's what you are seeing. Those are photos of mutant fruit flies. All the reddish structures are eyes. For example, in box E, eyes can be found at the base of the antennae, wings and on multiple places on the legs.

 

Ok, I will admit. Those are just eyes. They're not the same as limbs. How about animals with extra limbs? Wait, animals aren't the same as humans How about humans with new limbs? http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2007/Nov/Week1/1607737.jpg

 

Do you watch or read the news? I'm not so convinced, but here it is anyway: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22274113/

 

Now, do you want proofs human can spontaneously grow a radio? If history has taught you anything so far, you know I can find it.

[iNow]

Panislav - Here's a short answer to your questions and clarification of your misinterpretations. If you are truly sincere and wish to learn, review it and correct yourself.

 

http://content.yudu.com/Library/A113su/FocusMagazine/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yudu.com%2Flibrary%2Fitem_details%2F32174%2FFocus-Magazine

 

 

Got more time? Decided that this is pretty interesting and worth trying to learn more about? Here's a presentation that goes even farther with the education on these topics:

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-690865967686494800&ei=Oqd6SYjtHIOorwK9zpyyBQ&q=climbing+mount+improbable

[Daecon]

Also, if you're seriously interested in learning and not just a poor attempt at a troll, check out TalkOrigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[npts2020]

wtf is the flying spagetti monster?

 

 

making an extra wing or finger or arm or whatever isnt the same as making a new limb. but making eyes or something is liek a human sontaneousy growing a radio , it doesn't happen

 

I would point out that making an extra arm is making an extra limb and making the others is very similar. The reason humans don't spontaneously grow radios is that they are a mechanical constructs not biological ones.

 

(I believe the flying spaghetti monster is just a made-up entity for which to attribute things that one cannot understand)

[ydoaPs]

okay, explain this to me: how can mutations make wings and junk?

That's a pretty good question. It does seem unlikely that a single mutation could form a new functional limb out of nothing. And that's one of the reasons why no one says it does. It's all about cumulative change.

 

Let's ask Dawkins about the use of half a wing:

What use is half a wing? How did wings get their start? Many animals leap from bough to bough' date=' and sometimes fall to the ground. Especially in a small animal, the whole body surface catches the air and assists the leap, or breaks the fall, by acting as a crude aerofoil. Any tendency to increase the ratio of surface area to weight would help, for example flaps of skin growing out in the angles of joints. From here, there is a continuous series of gradations to gliding wings, and hence to flapping wings. Obviously there are distances that could not have been jubped by the earliest animals with proto-wings. Equally obviously, for any degree of smallness or crudeness of ancestral air-catching surfaces, there must be some distance, however short, which can be jumped with the flap and which cannot be jumped without the flap.

 

Or, if prototype wingflaps worked to break the animal's fall, you cannot say 'Below a certain size the flaps would have been no use at all'. Once again, it doesn't matter how small and un-winglike the first wingflaps were. There must be some height, call it h, such that an animal would just break its neck if it fell from that height, but would just survive if it fell from a slightly lower height. In this critical zone, any improvement in the body surface's ability to catch the air and break the fall, however slight that improvement, can make the difference between life and death. Natural selection will then favour slight, prototype wingflaps. When these small wingflaps have become the norm, the critical height h will become slightly greater. Now a slight further increase in the wingflaps will make the difference between life and death. And so on, until we have proper wings.

 

There are animals alive today that beautifully illustrate every stage in the continuum. There are frogs that glide with big webs between their toes, tree-snakes with flattened bodies that catch the air, lizards with flaps along their bodies; and several different kinds of mammals that glide with membranes stretched between their limbs, showing us the kind of way bats must have got their start. Contrary to the creationist literature, not only are animals with 'half a wing' common, so are animals with a quarter of a wing, three quarters of a wing, and so on. The idea of a flying continuum becomes even more persuasive when we remember that very small animals tend to float gently in the air, whatever their shape. The reason this is persuasive is that there is an infinitesimally graded continuum from small to large. [/quote']

 

 

there are no mutant flying pengiuns.

What about

? The BBC actually tricked a lot of people with that April Fool's joke.

 

what do you do when you get half a mutated wing anyway? pick your nose with it? so much for survival of the fittest..,,.....

See the above Dawkins quote.

 

seriously. everyone says there's all this evidence and crap but i havent seen

Try these:

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

What is Evolution?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

An Index to Creationist Claims