It is still that particular kind of fish. This kind of evolution is scientific. It does not prove or disprove common ancestry, which isn't scientific. I have no problem with a fish turning into a fish.
Exactly, the problem most people have against evolution is the development of complex creatures from nothing except atoms which were created in an even larger "accident," not changes in within species over time.
1
deleted
· 5 years ago
1) that’s abiogenisis, not evolution. There’s plenty of evidence for that too, but it’s not relevant for evolution.
2) Even if we disregard things like shared DNA between different “kinds” of animals, could you explain how small changes like this could not add up and, over a very, VERY long time, become big changes like different types of fish or, if you take even more time, different “kinds”?
The eons of mutations would probably form a seemingly new creature, but no process has been observed where new information can be added to the genetics of any creature. New species may not be able to breed, but this is due to deformation and loss of information, which is not helpful to the story of common ancenstry which requires onwards-and-upwards evolution. Also, beneficial mutation does not equal increase in information.
▼
deleted
· 5 years ago
“No process has been observed where new information can be added” this is simply not true. Accidental copying of genes happens all the time, for example some plants can have double the chromosomes their ancestors had (don’t really know how, but certain crops have it). That gives those plants a boatload of new genetic material that can mutate. Once mutation in the new genetic material has occured, boom, new information has been added. Animals don’t have this twice the chromosomes type thing, or at least I’ve never read anything about it, but accidental copying of genes happens all the time. Again, once a gene is duplicated and inserted into the DNA, it’s free to mutate without hindering the original function, as there are two copies of the gene, meaning one can still do the job while the other is extra. And again, once the extra copy has mutated, new information has been added.
Also, how does beneficial mutation not equal increase in information?
Copying pre-existing information to form a bigger gene sequence is still not producing new information.
As for beneficial mutations, take the peppered moth. It used to be light gray, blending in with the light trees. Black moths were rare because they stood out and were eaten. It was beneficial for moths to be gray. Then the industrial revolution happened and suddenly the black moths had better camouflage with all the soot. The gray ones stood out and were eaten much more frequently than the black moths, leading to a large stunt in the population of peppered moths. Black ones had the beneficial trait of being black, so they flourished, even though the information existed before the industrial revolution. Only the percentage of black moths in the population changed, causing the perceived evolution due to natural selection. (Oh, I guess this is to do with traits and not mutations, whoops)
I share DNA with a banana, once I learned this I stopped eating them. Cannibalism is wrong.
2
deleted
· 5 years ago
You’re skipping over the important part of my argument. Once the DNA is copied, the extra copy can mutate, creating new information without getting rid of the old information. How is this not adding information?
Say we take a phone book, and we find an entry: "John Doe, 123-4567". If a printing error (mutation) happened in the phone book, adding the letter 'a', it might become "Johan Doe, 123-4567". Now when someone tries to look up John Doe, they can't find his number! We lost the information stored in the arrangement of letters, because we added a single letter. The mutation did not add information, it mangled it. But what if instead a new mutation added a new entry: "Michael Jackson, 987-6543". Now when someone tries to call this number, the call does not reach anyone. That mutation wasn't useful or advantageous to the phone book, even though it was what appeared to be new information.
▼
·
Edited 5 years ago
deleted
· 5 years ago
False analogy and completely irrelevant. Mutations that add information are for the most part neutral, neither good nor bad, like every kind of mutation. However, they can also be beneficial or detrimental, and I’ll let you guess which one natural selection favours.
2) Even if we disregard things like shared DNA between different “kinds” of animals, could you explain how small changes like this could not add up and, over a very, VERY long time, become big changes like different types of fish or, if you take even more time, different “kinds”?
Also, how does beneficial mutation not equal increase in information?
As for beneficial mutations, take the peppered moth. It used to be light gray, blending in with the light trees. Black moths were rare because they stood out and were eaten. It was beneficial for moths to be gray. Then the industrial revolution happened and suddenly the black moths had better camouflage with all the soot. The gray ones stood out and were eaten much more frequently than the black moths, leading to a large stunt in the population of peppered moths. Black ones had the beneficial trait of being black, so they flourished, even though the information existed before the industrial revolution. Only the percentage of black moths in the population changed, causing the perceived evolution due to natural selection. (Oh, I guess this is to do with traits and not mutations, whoops)