Joined: Feb. 2008
|Quote (Robert Byers @ Mar. 10 2010,23:22)|
| I do think creatures could be changed by man by fiddleing with the Dna. if mans knowledge was that great. No there yet by far.|
Wrong. It has already been done many times.
I see physical change in nature as having innate triggers.
You may "see" this but without evidence, it's just a pointless statement.
The example could be breeds of dogs.
They show how diverse one get from a few original types.
Yet i don't see this as showing mere selection on random traits but rather the tip of the ice berg.
The diversity of traits is so much a part of nature and dogs that it easily just slips over the side allowing artificial selection to bring about the breeds.
This is wrong, and has been proven wrong many times over by experiment. We have in many cases identified the exact mutations responsible for things like specific traits of dog breeds. We understand the mechanisms behind the mutations, we have observed these mechanisms in nature and reproduced them in the lab. We know they are essentially random in nature, and have abundant evidence the same mechanisms were present in the past. We know how frequently mutations happen today, and understanding the mechanisms, we can make reasonable assumptions about their rates in the past. This leads to predictions which are broadly confirmed by many independent lines of evidence.
Isn't it time to admit (to yourself at least) that you have absolutely no idea what the last 50 years of molecular biology has accomplished ? That, lacking such knowledge, you are in no position to pass judgment on whether it's conclusions are correct ?