Creationists shouldn't comment on science...
Go ahead and study how many of the great scientists in history took the Bible as fact.
A very partial list includes Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, Bayes, Euler, Faraday, Mendel, Joule, Hertz, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck...
You really want to erase their contribution to science?
As a scientist, I regularly mutate every gene in the entire genome of c. elegans in an afternoon, and nature has ALOT more DNA available to mutate. All combinations of DNA are possible, so the best combination will be selected.
Science will continue to disprove religion and the bible as it has done for centuries.
If it's predictable, then it should be possible to predict what certain types of animals or plants will look like in the distant future, and what types of adaptations they'll develop.
How does a random mutation enable selection for beak morphology?
How does a random mutation enable selection for beak morphology?
You are ignoring the natural variation within species. There is a bell-shaped curve describing natural variation of traits withing species. That means that beak morphology would not be identical between different members of the same species, there would be variation, and some members would have beaks that were better suited for certain conditions. These members would be selected for in future generations.
...some members would have beaks that were better suited for certain conditions. These members would be selected for in future generations.
This is caused by individual mutations in many genes that ultimately change the ratio of proteins in these neurons. I agree, it was a very cool paper.
For example, a mutation that results in better nutrient utilization might cause something adaptive, but nothing that shows up in phenotype that can be naturally selected.
Shelgeyr
Mar 18, 2013Wow. They must have come a LONG, LONG way from those mutant-inbred fruitfly experiments we did 30 years ago... Those were fun though.