Write essays on origin of tetrapods

Write Essays On Origin Of Tetrapods

Write essays on origin of tetrapods

This bar-code number lets you verify that you're getting exactly the right version or edition of a book. The digit and digit formats both work. Potassium-argon ‘dates’ of recent Mt. Ngauruhoe lava flows. As you can see from the ‘dates’ in the above table the lava flows that were less than 55 years old were given dates from , years to million plus or minus 20 thousand years. Indiana University Press was founded in and is today recognized internationally as a leading academic publisher specializing in the humanities and social sciences. Sep 05,  · Back in , the Human Genome Project gave us a nigh-complete readout of our DNA. Somehow, those As, Gs, Cs, and Ts contained the full instructions for making one . Aristotle (/ ˈ ær ɪ ˌ s t ɒ t əl /; Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης Aristotélēs, pronounced [aristotélɛːs]; – BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher and scientist born in the city of Stagira, Chalkidiki, in the north of Classical with Plato, he is considered the "Father of Western Philosophy".Aristotle provided a complex and harmonious synthesis of the various.

Were Darwin's Galapagos Finches Evolution?

Write essays on origin of tetrapods

What does happen in a population as the genome reacts to the environment? Darwin looks at the finches on the Galapagos Islands and notices variations in beak size. He thought that the harder seed in the dry time was causing the beaks of the finches to grow stouter from the use of the part.

Mary Anning

But what was happening was that natural selection or a long term drought in the islands was causing the seed cases to harden. The heavier beaked finch allele in the genome was favored and the lighter beaked finch allele was not. The heavier beaked finch became more dominant because it passed on the heavy beak alleles. The heavy beak was not the result of a mutation!

It was already an allele in the genome and was just brought out as a result of the environment. When the rains came back the lighter beak became the more efficient beak and the number of heavy beaks reduced. This is microevolution at its best. But there was no change in the genome of the finch and certainly no new species has arisen from this. The genome expresses its variety by recombination of the alleles and causing the phenotype to show its wonderful God given types.

But what about mutations then?

Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong

What are they and how can they be beneficial? Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called point mutations.

Once in every 10, to , copies there is a mistake made. Our bodies have a compare — correct process that is very efficient. That is equal to a professional typist making a mistake in 50,, pages of typescript. The Neo-Darwinists made random mutations the engine of evolution. For mutations to be the driver of the massive amount of information there must be two things true of those mutations.

The mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism. To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation and if they exist they must be exceedingly rare.

The smallness of the point mutation is also in question. Dawkins seems to think that the mutation can be as small as needed to make the hypothesis work, but it appears that one nucleotide base is as small as you can get. But is that enough? And if that truly does occur will natural selection grab and go with it? In a stable population of organisms each organism must reproduce one of itself to keep the stability of the population.

But we see in nature that animals must produce many more than one for themselves because of the randomness of death. Even elephants produce 5 to 10 offspring to overcome this random noise factor. Some organisms produce thousands or even millions to assure replacing themselves.

Evolutionists want many mutations to occur so positive mutations can be captured by natural selection but a high mutation rate for a population is not good as the overwhelming number of mutations can destroy a population.

Let us also say that this population needs 5 offspring to keep the population stable or 20 percent growth. The survival rate increase would be He was also one of the architects of the Neo Darwinian Theory. He calculated that most mutations with positive survival values would not survive, and he believed that the answer was many positive mutations.

If there were organisms with the mutation their odds would be about 5 out of 8. With with the same mutation their odds would be about 6 out of 7 and with organisms with the same mutation the odds are about even. What are the odds of organisms having the same point mutation it has to be the same for that particular information to get into the genome in a population?

Write essays on origin of tetrapods

The chances that organisms would have the very same point mutation in the very same nucleotide is 1 in 3. A mutation almost always involves a loss of information or just a copy of information. They have never added new information to the genome, so it appears that they can never bring that genome added complexity.

Are there beneficial mutations? Yes there are for certain environments. Blind cave catfishes are the result of the mutation that lost the information of an eye. This mutation caused the eye, which was useless and prone to disease and injury in the cave to be lost and it actually helped the catfish survive in the cave.

But the catfish genome did not have any new information added for it to become a perch genome or any other genome. In fact the eye genes were lost to the genome. So natural selection, working in the cave worked to keep the eyeless catfish going, outside the cave it will quickly die.

The important thing to keep in mind is that we all along were only working with the genome of the catfish and at no point was there any new information to change that genome to another. Genomes are like rubber bands that you can stretch out very far, but they will always snap back to the original when released.

If we look at the accelerated fruit fly experiments that used radiation to accelerate the copying errors of DNA to try to produce another species, we have only seen fruit flies with parts missing or dead flies or flies too crippled to pass on its genes.

They never got a house fly out of the deal. Because the mutation lost information in the fruit fly genome and did not add the information to become a house fly. It is interesting that a mutation such as an orange without seeds is considered useful, that is to orange eaters like me, but to oranges it is not such a good idea, for the seedless orange cannot pass on its genes.

It is a useful mutation, but not a positive mutation. A positive mutation would enable the species to pass on its genes more efficiently and would add information to the genome.

Evolutionists get this definition confused too. Another problem is that evolutionists confuse mutations with recombination and alleles. They are not the same. Some variant alleles in a genome are the result of mutation, but most are from recombination and were there at the beginning of that species. All alleles that arise from mutation are either neutral or excessively deleterious.

There are not really any positive mutations in literature today, even evolution literature. In one instance the single nucleotide substation in a genome was responsible for the resistance to a weed herbicide. This herbicide was made to attach and deactivate a protein needed by the weed. A single change in the genetic code for this protein, in the sector used for defining the herbicide attachment, deprived the herbicide of its attachment point and nullified its effectiveness.

Was this a positive mutation? We have no way of knowing if this was the result of a mutated allele or the expression of an allele in the genome that was already there. It may have been a very rare, neutral mutation of an allele that had been in the genome too.

But it was specific to the man-made herbicide and had no selective value outside of that. It did not create another function and did not help the weed to adapt any other way.

It added no information to the genome and thus no new complexity. There was no evolution here. So you see, mutations can produce an allele of a gene that is neutral rarely or produce alleles that are dangerous, but cannot be the driver of massive amount of change that needs to occur to change one species into another.

For that to occur we should be seeing many positive mutations in the population. Instead we are seeing massive information loss mutations in the population. Molecular Biology and Irreducible Complexity Even molecular biology has not helped as the evolutionists have hoped. Molecular genetics have found that genomes have supported Taxonomy and not Phylogeny. It has also been found in molecular genetics that genomes have multiple copies of genes or of non-coding sequences that are very homogeneous within species, but heterogeneous between species.

It is simpler to assume there is no common ancestral genome. He uses the common mousetrap as his analogy, none of the parts can catch a mouse, and they all have to be present and functionally joined together to work. There have been arguments from evolutionists that the parts of the mousetrap could be used for other uses, like fish hooks or paperweights, but that is missing the point entirely.

That cellular systems are useful in other places does not say they would be useful in the cell by them selves, just as a paperweight won't catch a mouse!

One even said that a simple spring could catch a mouse. Christian Schwabe, a non-creationist critic of Darwinian evolution said this: Theoretical limitations of molecular phyolgenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Changes to homeotic genes cause monstrosities; they do not change an amphibian into a reptile.

And the mutations do not add any information; they just cause the existing information to be misdirected to create fruit fly legs where fruit fly antenna needs to be for instance.

Do not be misled by the Evolutionists. I have concerned Christians coming to me all the time with a newspaper article saying what about this?! I just tell them not to panic and wait because it too will fall and be found as nothing. Truly God is in control and all striving will cease. Remember Evolution is a philosophy masquerading as a science. Evolution Fails to Predict the Genetic Complexity Any scientific theory, which evolution is purported to be, has to be able to predict to be a good theory.

Only with this connection can small mutations actually have the ability to make massive morphological changes necessary for evolution to be plausible.