Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").
Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:
One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.
Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.
For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.
While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^
It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.
VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog". It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."
One theory is that evolutionary jumps are borne of necessity.
I mentioned this.
Many people try to settle the theory through the concept of gradual evolution, however, recent studies are showing this to not be supported by the observable evidence, either.
"Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations," says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. "In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view."Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes
For example, an ice age coming upon primitive humans could have forced them to select for alternative genetic features in order to survive. I think what is very clear is the evolution of Humaniods from one species to the next more advanced version.
Without denying your example, you're using theory to support theory.
When I was young, there was no such thing as animals communicating to us with language. But, under stress, Apes can now use sign language and communicate their thoughts and desires. Perhaps they will teach their offspring.
That's not evolution. The experiment just hadn't been tried. The Gorilla already had that capability.
We have the fossil remains of Primitive Humans. We can see how they changed and adapted. We can see the influence of things like climate change. We can trace their migrations and we have found their settlements. So the physical evidence for evolution is certainly there. If it's not enough for you personally, then God Bless. It is for me.
Apes have the physical capability for manipulating their fingers and hands and the brain capacity to learn sign language.
This learning occurred when they came into contact with a more advanced creature, us. They can now express themselves, They turn out to have complex thoughts, desires and a certain self awareness. That is how evolution works. Something changes in the environment. The weather changes, food sources disappear or appear, or there is contact with other creatures that they learn something from. If the new skill is useful it is then passed on and refined. We now have talking Apes.... Go figure.
Marc, the apes learning sign language thing is operant conditioning, I can teach a pigeon to play the piano like Skinner did (or bowling, soccer, play chess, etc.) doesn't mean they understand. All they understand is "if I move my hand this way I get a banana, if I do it twice this other way I get 2 bananas".
"Climate change"...I suggest you look up what "Maunder minimum" was and how sun spots correlate with climate change to see it's not as simple as some say. I have not formed an opinion on this yet.
If a platypus is 82% genetically similar to a human (which I am sure is wrong--we are biologically almost identical to a platypus, since most of the genome accounts for microscopic traits only), then there is no way we are 97% similar to a bacterium.
I don't think they mapped out the entire platypus Genome, just what they found is so far 82% similar. Maybe that's what they meant. I also read we are roughly 45% algae somewhere else