Was reading through an evolution tutorial on the University of Berkeley web site. And read the following,
"The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm and are called germ line mutations.A single germ line mutation can have a range of effect
s:No change occurs in phenotype
Some mutations don't have any noticeable effect on the phenotype of an organism. This can happen in many situations: perhaps the mutation occurs in a stretch of DNA with no function, or perhaps the mutation occurs in a protein-coding region, but ends up not affecting the amino acid sequence of the protein.Small change occurs in phenotyp
A single mutation caused this cat's ears to curl backwards slightly.Big change occurs in phenotype
Some really important phenotypic changes, like DDT resistance in insects are sometimes caused by single mutations. A single mutation can also have strong negative effects for the organism. Mutations that cause the death of an organism are called lethals — and it doesn't get more negative than that.
There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings
; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles — mutations could not have done it."
Now here is where I get confused. Why couldn't a pig develop wings and other body changes that might enable it fly? That doesn't seem any less unlikely or absurd given enough time than the idea that a big bang evolved into a human being. To a layman this seems to undermine the idea that evolution through random mutations could develop complex animals that do all sorts of things, fly, walk, run, etc. from what amounts to a pool of water.
This is where I go, sure I see the evolution explained above happening all over, but I sure don't get how we go from saying mutations can cause a beetle to change the color of its wings to saying a plant, beginning and continuing with random mutation, became a man. With that logic, the very same beetle might very well develop a brain, vocal chords and speech in a few billion years. And then we wouldn't need Pixar!
While that sounds silly. Does it sound any more silly that a pool of water or plant developing into a human being?
To quote Berkeley, "neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings". Since science can't/won't acknowledge God, I might say, "wishful thinking looks at a mutation changing the color of a beetle's wing and extrapolates from that evidence that Man "evolved" from a soup of matter." That is of course simplifying the issue, but you get the point.
I bring up Beetle's by the way because that is a common example evolutionists bring up as evidence we can see of evolution, i.e. through mutations the color of a beetle's wings changed and gave the new beetle's an environmental advantage.
Not being a scientist, I sincerely would like an explanation of the above. thanks!