Evolution is a basic, biological process

He meant perspicacity.--Percy

Hi Soplar,I agree with Nosy - I take issue with the weakness of this statement: I submit that ecology without evolution is simply descriptive natural history and does little if anything to advance our knowledge. Biogeography is completely unintelligible. Mutualism, commensalism, endosymbiosis, parasitism, pathology, biodiversity, etc etc all require evolution to make sense. Conservation would be ad hoc, "blind guess" science without evolution: bioinvasion, the effects of habitat degradation on ecological communities, and the long-term effects of pollution and resource over-exploitation are impossible to understand and/or mitigate without reference to evolution. The causes and consequences of extinction - local or mass - cannot be understood without evolution. Preparing for and controlling the effects of epizootic or zoonotic EIDs are impossible to even approach without evolution as a basic underpinning. The list is so comprehensive that if anything, Dobzhansky's phrase is an understatement.

I think that people can be careless with their nomenclature, because either way, the same thing is happening - factors in the environment are causing non-random changes in the allele frequency of the population, which is evolution. So while it seems like a big distinction, the same thing is happening either way, basically. A few issues with your word choices. There's not really any "general varieties", any more than you and I represent two "general varieties" of human based on our individual differences from each other. All individuals, in any population, are unique to some degree. Variation, not sameness, is the norm in biology. They were all bacteria; some had genes that the others did not. An environmental factor selected these individuals over the others, and the gene pool of the population was shaped as a result.That's evolution. But we already know where the alternate alleles come from. Mutation. We know for sure that mutation occured; we know for sure that selection occured. Therefore we know for sure that this is an example of evolution. This has often been done. Don't have any examples offhand. There is a random generator in the DNA, but it allows for variation with no limits whatsoever; it's called mutation.We know that mutation must occur; it would be a physical impossibility for it not to. And we know that the antibiotic resistance couldn't have been something already programmed into the genome, because then all the bacteria would have been resistant. Instead, only some of them were. Which means that some of them had genetic sequences the others did not. Since they probably grew their culture from one or a few individuals, we know therefore that the only possible source of these novel genetic sequences was mutation. So we know that mutation occured. Percy's right; I meant "perspicacity":

quote:

---

perspicacious

​

of acute mental vision or discernment

---

Hi NosyNedI agree that this is not a very strong argument and I also totally agree that I was merely trying to point out that there is a difference between unintelligible and not being able to be understood in the context of the phrase modern biology is unintelligible without evolutionSoplar

Hi TheLiteralistRe the concept of an Intelligent Designer, I have encountered the basic idea behind the concept of an ID many times. And your comment is similar to others I’ve seen and seems to boil down to: You may not have had a chance to read my response 197 (not sure how to put a link in) which discusses the three explanations of the state of the world we find today: creationism, ID and unaided evolution, and how much each assists the quest for disease prevention.In 197 I said, re ID Using your comments, I can expand a bit on my 197 reply. Consider these excerpts Reflecting on the world we can observe, what does the concept of the ID tell us? If there is an ID, the ID doesn’t really seem so intelligent, since the ID designed a system with many flaws: A cell division system that is prone to errors which leads to cancer, heart disease, etc. Degradation in bodily systems that leave people in terrible states such as Alzheimer’s. Bacteria that become immune to antibiotics, and so on. Now, I suppose it could be argued that the current state is part of the ID’s plan but that is just a cop out as no one has ever seen the ID and can have no way of knowing what the ID’s plan is, if any.On the other hand, we now understand that cells contain DNA, that DNA is necessary for protein fabrication, that cells must divide and that DNA can be modified during cell division leading to a slightly new form of the parent cell; thus,we can see how life has evolved. So where is the need for an ID? Furthermore, we are now beginning to understand how things like cancer and antibiotic resistant bacteria occur and are beginning to see how we might effect cures. In this regard, if there is an ID, the ID has apparently left it up to us humans to work on a fix for the ID’s imperfect design; unless the ID is causing things like cancer which I find a bit much to swallowI think the concept of an ID is an attempt to provide a simple answer to a complex problem. The fact is that a billion years is a long time and the random variations that chance mutations create over this time interval is sufficient to account for all that we see, especially diversity. I don’t see how an ID fits into the scheme of things; moreover, if we leave out the ID, I don’t see what is lostRe ,I have found it enjoyable and fascinating; it has caused me to sharpen my thoughts on the matter. You have raised some very interesting questions and I am enjoying debating them with youSoplar

Hi QuetzalPlease see my response to NosyNed - I think we are in agreementSoplar

Hey Soplar,I would be surprised if we weren't fundamentally in agreement considering your other work on this board. I guess I'm still not understanding your point. Do you mean to say that it is possible to understand the basic descriptions of biological functions, whether published in the lay or professional literature, without recourse to evolution? If so, then I think that's a truism - albeit fairly trivial IMO. OTOH, most biological processes, from cellular mechanics to photosynthesis to macroecology, ARE unexplainable without recourse to evolution. Looking forward to your clarification.

Hi QuetzalI agree this line of discussion has gotten a bit confused and I will try to clarifyI think this got started as a response to the assertions by TheLiteralist: IMO, it depends upon what one is trying to understand. In high school biology, I was taught (I think, as it was many years ago) the basics of Mendelian inheritance — all the nice little peas, etc. It was possible to understand the concepts without even knowing anything about Mendel.Similarly, one can grasp the basics of the structure of DNA, the genes strewn along the DNA molecule, the fact that cells divide with the consequence of DNA copying errors during cell division without mentioning evolutionHowever, IMO this extract from the conclusion to a report in the Dec 24 Science would be difficult to understand without a basic knowledge of evolution Clearly, without getting into what the phrase Smo is reported to activate G i means, a connection between frogs, flies (Drosophila) and mammals is clearly understood in this article. And I just grabbed this from the latest issue I have — there are many more like this. Hence, the statement: modern biology is unintelligible without and understanding of evolutionBut, it must be remembered, that what is important in this excerpt, from an evolutionary viewpoint, is the fact that frogs, flies (Drosophila) and mammals are related through evolution. Smo is reported to activate G I relates to a signaling process that can be understood independently of evolution.As you well know, one of the arguments used against evolution is the gaps problem, and there ARE gaps, since the fossil record is not very good in some places. The obvious rejoinder to the gaps problem is that evolution is a process driven by mutations which allows us to explain the changes that have occurred in the animal (and plant) kingdoms, beginning with single celled life and leading to very complex forms. The fact that there are gaps is not a problem with evolution, it is merely a problem with fossil collection.So, while it is possible to understand some aspects of biology, is impossible to understand the full scope of biology, especially the lineage beginning with single celled animals and leading to humans without an understanding of evolution since evolution is not some subject apart from biology, evolution is one of the basic facts of biologyI hope this helpsSoplar

It does indeed. Thank you for the clarification. Your final paragraph explains things quite well: I guess my interpretation of what you were saying was correct. Appreciate your time on this point.

what it causes is the prevalence of the resistance to increase in the population as less resistant strains are eliminated, reducing competition for those with the resistant mutations.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

It appears that forum members may have lost interest in this thread — the last posted response was Jan 13. I understand this happens — ce la vie. When I formulated my OP, I was basically interested in the answer to the Title question Why Does. While I don’t believe any of my initial premises were seriously challenged, especially the one I restate below, after reviewing responses in the thread and following other leads, I believe I have the answer to the Title question, and it’s much as I had thought.In my OP, I asserted that (I will use the term supernatural being throughout as this being has many names: God, Allah, Dieu Yahweh, Gott, to name a few.)I could have stated this another way On the other hand, a vast body of evidence shows that

• The universe began approximately 13.7 billion years ago with a Big Bang
• The solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago
• life first appeared on earth approximately 1-2 billion years
• Multicelled life fiat appears in the Cambrian Explosion
• Homo Sapiens first appears between 150,000 and 100,000 years ago

All of this, with the current exception of where the Big Bang came from, can be explained without reference to a supernatural being. Regarding the place of evolution in the explanation of the world in which we live, it should be noted that there are a number of disciplines that are devoted to answering the myriad of observations that yield the above conclusions: Archeology, Biology, Physics, Astronomy, etc. The explanation of evolution is just one of the many disciplines -- the discipline which explains the observations about life forms and how they came to be. I believe, it is imperative that any explanation of the evolutionary process be congruent with the other disciplines. IMO Creationism and ID are not. So why does creationism and ID persist? I was tempted to trot out some more of the vast body of knowledge to show how the explanation of evolution that began with Darwin was superior to either Creationism or and ID, but, after reflecting on this, I came to the conclusion that I might be wasting my time. The unfortunate fact is (I hope I don’t offend too many): we humans are basically irrational. .The hold, on many people, of a belief in a supernatural being is very strong. So strong that it allows young men and women to commit suicide bombings or to fly airplanes into buildings, firmly believing that they are carrying of the will of Allah. I used to wonder why, in medieval times, strong nobles would defer to weak or corrupt Kings or Emperors, until I realized that these nobles had a strong belief in the supernatural and firmly believed they ran the risk of eternal life in Hell if they did harm to the king who was the servant of a supernatural beingThere are many other examples of our collective irrationality: Every paper in the country carries an Astrology column, yet, most rarely discuss astronomy. Millions of people play the lottery when the chance of winning is less than being hit by a meteorite. After 9/11, many changed their travel plans from flying to driving with the net estimated increase in fatalities of about 300. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.The difficulty of my task was made exceptionally clear by an article in the Wall Street Journal, Jan 17, which began The poster kids for the article were a 14 year old boy and a 13 year old girl who had this to say How can a 13 year old girl have enough understanding of the world around her to "believe that evolution is false"? But that's where it starts, just like any other non fact based belief such as the inferiority of certain people.The article goes on to discuss the environments in which these two children are being raised. I believe that if one were to change a few location references and other small details, this article could discuss the situation if Ireland or Iraq. The divide between groups with irrational beliefs is wide, deep and in many cases difficult, if not impossible to cross. In viewing the divisions described in this article, I realize that evolution is just a part of the problem — perhaps the canary on the ideological mine shaftThus, I realize my quest to convert people to an understanding/acceptance of science is quixotic. I will continue to engage in forums, write letters, and do whatever can be done to keep theological explanations of the world out of the classroom. The recent decision by a Judge in Atlanta lends encouragement. Let's hope the judiciary in Dover Pa rules the same way.Your comments are invited and welcomeSoplar

This seems to fit in this thread, if not, someone direct me to an appropriate one.
Can someone answer a few questions for me? I used to believe in ToE until I was challenged to provide actual physical proof of the evidence for evolution. Being unable to find any, I lost faith in the theory. ID seems very appealing to me.
I have been following a few of the threads here and I went to the Talk Origins site as suggested. Unfortunately I wasn’t very satisfied with the information provided as in the following examples: Taken from TALK. ORIGINSThe next fossil in the sequence, Pakicetus, is the oldest cetacean, and the first known archaeocete. It is from the early Eocene of Pakistan, about 52 million years ago (Gingerich and others 1983). Although it is known only from fragmentary skull remains, those remains are very diagnostic, and they are definitely intermediate between Sinonyxand later whales
Note that these first, very very old traces of shark-like animals are so fragmentary that we can't get much detailed information. So, we don't know which jawless fish was the actual ancestor of early sharks.
Upper Silurian -- first little scales found.
GAP: Once again, the first traces are so fragmentary that the actual ancestor can't be identified
GAP: Ideally, of course, we want an entire skeleton from the middle Late Devonian, not just limb fragments. Nobody's found one yet.
This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367)When the synapsids are investigated further it seems as if there is serious disagreement as to what they actually are:Evolutionists acknowledge that they cannot yet recognize the specific [cynodont] lineage that led to mammals (Carroll, p. 398). That is why Roger Lewin (1981), summarizing a scientific conference on the matter, wrote: The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.
The best Carroll (p. 410) can say is that [i]t is reasonable to believe that the ancestors of mammals can be found among cynodonts such as the chiniquodontids or galesaurids that reduced their body size, probably in relationship to an insectivorous diet (emphasis mine). However, as Carroll (p. 392) points out, the chiniquodontids and galesaurids of the Lower to Middle Triassic reveal only the initial stages in the origin of most of the features that characterize the mammalian skeleton.
This inability to trace the transition from cynodont to mammal is usually blamed on the paucity of fossils. Carroll (p. 392) writes, Unfortunately, the record of the immediate ancestors of mammals becomes less complete in the Upper Triassic. There are, however, fossils of at least two superfamilies, three families, and seven genera of advanced cynodonts from the Upper Triassic (Carroll, p. 624). It just so happens that none of them are suitable as transitions to mammals.The following is from another website claiming to provide proof of transitional forms, by GR Morton.378 MYR ago- Panderichthys--These are lobe-finned fish. Panderichthys was a rhipidistian,osteolepiform fish. The skull bones of these fish are bone for bone equivalents to the skull bones of the earliest tetrapods. (Carroll 1988, p. 160). These are the only fish whose fin bones fit the tetrapod pattern of humerus, ulna and radius in the forelimb and femur, tibia and fibula in the hindlimb. (Thomson, 1991, p. 488), Yet these limbs still have fins on them (Coates, 1994,p. 174). Their brain case is so much like that of the earliest tetrapod, they were originally classified as tetrapods until a complete skeleton was found. Then is was proven that they were really still fish. (Ahlberg and Milner, 1994, p. 508).
[Did someone say something about the scientific method?]-Elginerpeton is a very primitive tetrapod found at Scat Craig, Scotland. Its lower jaw had coronoid fangs as did Panderichthys but they were smaller (Ahlberg 1991, p. 299). The very primitive limb bones found with it include an Ichthyostega-like tibia and an ilia and shoulder girdle comparable to the future Hynerpeton. There are no hands or feet found with the fossil so while the animal is quite tetrapod like in the parts which have been preserved, the final proof of its tetrapod status is missing. (Carroll, 1996, p. 19)
368 MYR- Obruchevichthys was found in Latvia and Russia but is only known from a partial mandible. The similarity between this mandible and Elginerpeton caused Ahlberg (1991) to reclassify this as a tetrapod. This creature also shows the coronoid fangs of the Panderichthys but they were also smaller than the panderichthyid fangs. Daeschler notes that this animal also has the parasymphysial fans of a tetrapod. (Daeschler, 2000, p. 307)As you can see, in almost every example there is only fragmentary evidence or just the critical features necessary for "proof" are missing.When I examine evidence like this I am not convinced. Much similar verbiage was printed about the coelacanth and it was almost universally accepted by evolutionists as having transitional features until live ones were discovered and dissected, revealing none of the previously known proto limbs .My question about fossil evidence is then: Does any verifiable fossil evidence exist for transitional forms? In one of the first posts on this thread it was again asserted there are some.I also noted that the Talk. Origins site stated that there were very few pre Cambrian fossils, yet most of the literature I have found states that the pre Cambrian is rich with fossils, which is true?Regarding age dating, I recently read a paper that described a potassium argon dating test that was well documented. Lava rock formed less than 10 years before the test at Mt. St. Helens was dated at 250, 000 to 3,000,000 years old. Why should radioactive half life dating be assumed as accurate with results like these?I found this quote from one of the posters on this site;[not this thread]
What hypothesis has any proponent of ID ever stated AND tested? You see, that’s another component of the scientific method. The hypotheses must be testable. That is to say, you must design a repeatable experiment based on the hypotheses (including the null) and see if your idea is supported, or if it shown to be false. (And also keep in mind that we do not refer to something as a theory after a few simple experiments, even if they do support our hypotheses.If this statement is true about ID, then is it also true about ToE? If there has been a repeatable experiment designed, where would I find it documented? I don’t see how a finch beak that gets fractionally longer one year and fractionally shorter the next year proves anything as it could be a result of a nutritional change. The ring species argument seems analogous to stating that if Lucy Liu won’t mate with me then she must be a new species.I haven’t really seen a good response to the question that If evolution is an ongoing process, why don’t we see evidence of it today? Could someone clear up these things for me? Thanks in advance for your responses.

That is pretty well 100 % off topic here. I suggest you take each bit and propose topics on the separate questions if you want the answer.To enforce that this thread is closed for a temporary break.

Hi AdmNosyNot sure I agree I haven’t had a chance to study exevolutionists msg, but, and I don’t wish to offend the exevolutionist, his/her msg is a perfect example of the reasons for the confusion in the debate.Exev writes about problems with the fossil record — why are there gaps? This is a common misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. An understanding of the evolutionary process tells us how life has evolved (mutations caused by DNA copying errors). The fact that there are gaps in the fossil record is not a fault of evolution, it is the fault of fossil hunters — finding fossils is very difficult in view of the many changes that have occurred on earth. I find it surprising that we have as many as we do.Exev writes about apparent problems with radioactive decay dating. This is another very complex process. One needs to have a firm understanding of some of the elements of nuclear physics to grasp the technique clearly.As for Exev complaint This is a bit of a surprise. Exev does not seem to understand the evolutionary process or he/she would know that antibiotic resistant bacteria, cancer, aging, etc. are all evidence for the evolutionary process that are easily discernable today.I will take some time and prepare a little more re this message, but I would like to hear from some others re my query Why Does the Belief of Creationism and Intelligent Design Persist ? and some of the other’s I have posted . For example my reply to TheLiteralist re ID in which I made the assertion No one has challenged this which basically dispenses wiht the ID conceptRegardsSoplar

Hi ExEvolutionistAs I responded to AdmNosy, I believe you’ve come to the right place as your queries are representative of much of the confusion that surrounds this debate. faith in ToE Let’s begin with your statement As I will demonstrate, looked at properly, the world around us provides a great deal of evidence; in fact, it is very difficult to account for the world around us without evolution; furthermore, the appeal of ID is its simplification of a complex issue. But, upon close inspection ID is not the answer. The Fossil Record You appear to have made a good study of paleoontology; however, in your studies, you have lost sight of the forest because of the trees. Paleontologists travel all over the earth in search of fossils which are generally found in layers of sedimentary rocks. These rocks can be dated by a variety of methods which I discuss below, but it is obvious that underlying strata are generally older than overlying strata. After examining literally thousands of fossils, a pattern begins to emerge. First, you find that most of the fossils belong to extinct species, but of greater import form the viewpoint of evolution is fossils belonging to extant groups of animals are also found. Eventually, you can construct a table such the one I show below.

• 500 Mya, Fish, babies born from eggs lid in water
• 350 Mya, Amphibians, babies born from eggs laid in water
• 280 Mya, Reptiles, babies born from eggs protected by shells
• 66 Mya Mammals, babies born live
• 30 Mya, Primates, babies born live
• 4-7 Mya, Humans

This list illustrates the order of appearance (Mya = millions of years ago) of the major groups of the phylum Chordata in the fossil record. Of particular interest is that those that appeared more recently are more advanced than the earlier ones. E.g., babies that are born live have a greater survival chance than those born in the water..Now, the obvious question is — how did this happen? The answer as I will show is the process of evolution.What I want to emphasis at this point is that while there are gaps in the fossil record as you have discovered, the gaps are not caused by flaws in evolution, the gaps are caused by the difficulty in finding fossils. Thus if you are interested in the details of Panderichthys, then you will be frustrated by the gaps in the record, but if you are interested in the process of evolution, the gaps are not a problem. Also, as you will see, an explanation of the process of evolution is not obtained from the fossil record, the process of evolution merely explains the fossil record.One more point re fossils. You state Not sure about the Talk Origins site, seems like a creationist oriented site, but I just entered Cambrian era into google and found lots of sites with a wealth of data re fossils from the Cambrian era. I then entered burgess shales (one of the richest sources of Cambrian fossils and again found a wealth of data. My suggestion, in general, is be careful of you sources. I invariably use google, although you have to be a bit careful there as there are a lot of creationist sites which look good at first Radiometric dating and stratiography Let’s next consider Radiometric dating. I have added stratiography to a discussion of radiometric dating as they are interrelated. As you know, radiometric dating is based upon the decay of unstable nuclei. This list exhibits the half lives of some of the principal elements used in radiometric dating

• Carbon 14 disintegrates to Nitrogen 12 with half live of 5.3 Ky
• Uranium 235 disintegrates to Lead 207with half live of 704 M yrs
• Rubidium 87 disintegrates to Strontium 87 with half live of 48.8 B yrs

As you have discovered, Radiometric dating, like any complex technique, has its problems. Variations in the amount of C14 caused errors in the assumption of smooth decay and required pain staking adjustments by examining tree rings. Also, different elements are applicable to different date ranges. But as with the fossils, one has to step back and look at the big picture. Which is why I’ve included stratiography in this area. Stratiography is the analysis of strata as the name implies and was one of the first techniques used to show the relationship of fossils and to try to date layers. Geologists measured sedimentation and erosion rates and made some crude estimates of how old a rock layer is. For example, a rock layer 1000 ft thick might have taken 120,000 years to form if the sedimentation rate is 0.1 per year. Having an estimate of a rock layers age can then be compared with radiometric dating to provide a better estimate. Many radiometric dates are arrived at by examining volcanic deposits and these aren’t always available The Process of Evolution So, let’s discuss what evolution is all about. To begin with, Evolution is a process which affects all living organisms — a process that is presently ongoing and easily detectable with modern techniques. The "theory of evolution" is merely the latest and as far as can be known, best explanation of the process. A basic problem with understanding the evolutionary process is that it is an extremely slow process and requires a keen observer who knows where and how to look to detect it. One of Darwin’s principal claims to fame is that he was the first "keen observer" who gathered enough information to detect/discover the process. Of course, there are those who believe Alfred Wallace, who had also detected the process, might have been first. What is important is to emphasize that if Darwin had not discovered the process of evolution, some one else would have -- all he did was point out what any other observer could also see, and eventually did.With regard to Darwin’s theory of evolution, Darwin’s name is associated with the theory as he was the first to publish. But Darwin actually made only modest contributions to our understanding of the evolutionary process. Darwin detected the process, and, other than noting that, in general, the strongest species will survive, that’s all. Darwin had no clue as to how the process operates. It has been only within the past 50 —60 years the we have determined how evolution works.Let’s begin with a bit of biology review. Many living organisms, including us, are multicelled. The cell in a multicelled animal is a complex structure, but for this discussion, of interest is the fact the cell contains a nucleus (which distinguishes multicelled animals as eukaryotes), the nucleus contains chromosomes (46 in most humans, less is lower forms) and the chromosomes contain DNA. Strung out along the DNA molecule are the genes. The existence of genes was first deduced by Gregor Mendel, but he had no idea what they were.DNA is essential for life as the genes on DNA are the blueprints for proteins which are constructed from amino acids, BUT amino acids cannot combine to form proteins without the assistance of genes. That DNA contains the genes was discovered by microbiologist Oswald Avery (1877-1955) the Journal of Experimental Medicine 1944.. One Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, has called this discovery "the historical platform of modern DNA research"Avery’s work inspired James Watson and Francis Crick, and others such as Linus Pauling, to seek DNA's structure. Watson and Crick won the race in April 1953 when they published the structure of DNA. But, while determining the basic double helical structure of DNA was important, the most significant step was taken in 1998 by geneticist Craig Venter, who teamed with DNA sequencing machine maker, Applied Biosciences Corp. to set up a company named Celera which would use the shotgun approach to genetic sequencing and scores of AB’s sequencing machines to decipher humanity's entire genetic code, which finally identified the individual genes . Actually, there is still some question regarding the exact number of genes, see sciencemag.org, 22 August 2003 Gene Counters Struggle to Get the Right AnswerSo, now we have established the central nature of the cell in all life forms, at least those of interest, and the need for DNA to facilitate the production of proteins which make cells possible. But we still haven’t identified the specific aspect of the process which drives it.To do this, we need to note that cells are not immortal. -- all cells have finite life. Normal cell death is termed apoptosis. Since cells die, they must be replaced and the only replacement mechanism is cell division (the basic reason for current interest is stem cells) thus cell division is necessary for the continuation of life. But, degradation can occur when cells divide, basically due to mistakes that are made in the copying of DNA during cell division. When a cell divides, the DNA unzips into two single helixes (the reason for the double helix is to allow this to happen). One single helix goes to each of the divided cells. Once inside the new cell, an army of proteins rebuilds the other helix. It is this rebuilding step that errors can creep in. A complex machinery exists to repair mistakes, but sometimes DNA repair fails and a cell with new DNA is formed — we call this a mutation.
Good mutations lead to an improved life forms; greater survival ability, etc. This is the driver of evolution , which has led to the myriad life forms we find on earth.And now for your last question Somewhere back in this thread are several discussions about antibiotic resistant bacteria. These critters become a nuisance when antibiotics are employed. Due to mutations, there are always a number of bacterial variants in existence, some of which may be resistant to a given antibiotic. When antibiotic is administered, it kills all the non resistant bacteria and selects for the resistant ones. As we know, new strains of bacteria are appearing all the time since antibiotic resistance seems to appear with frustrating regularity. The pharmaceutical companies are essentially in a race with the bacteria and it’s not clear who’s going to win.But there is other evidence of the on going nature of evolution. The average life of a cell is about 7 years, so every 7 years we get a new body. Unfortunately, the new body is usually not as good as the old one. Gradually, over time, we note that our bodies change. All this is due to DNA copying errors, the driver of evolution, so if you want to observe evolution at work, just look in a mirror.I mentioned above that all cells are mortal — well. That’s not quite true. A particularly nasty consequence of the errors that creep in due the continual replacement of cells by cell division is cancer. Cancer results when the copying errors are so great that the resultant cells that are supposed to die, fail to do so —they become immortal and begin to divide rapidly in an uncontrolled manner. Cancer is a disease of the DNA and a direct result of the process of evolution. It should be noted that id the copying errors are really bad, the cell just diesWell. I think I’ve gone on long enough. If you want a discussion of ID, see my response a few responses back. Hopefully I’ve modified you view of ToE — it’s a complex subject.Soplar