Quote:
Originally Posted by Flabbibulin
Sorry for the late revision, but I didn't want it to seem like I was suggesting that 100% of mutations are negative-
but, I am one for pointing out some of the flaws/unanswered questions in evolutionary biology, which include-
1/ the rarity of beneficial mutations
2/ the lack of fossil evidence of said mutations and their linear path to a new organism
3/ the usefulness of half an organ as it evolves into a complete form.
|
As for #1, I think people really overvalue the frequency of any mutation and the amount that it impacts a species. Frequency wise, these evolutions take part over millions of years or, assuming a lifespan of about 20 years, or hundreds of thousands of generations. For example (and this is from memory, I might be wrong), it took about 15 million years for the last distinguishable species of horse to evolve to the modern day horse, which is about 500 000 lifetimes of evolution. There isn't much difference between the two animals, which describes the rate at which mutations turn into species changes.
In addition, almost any mutation, short of being completely groundbreaking in a single generation, will only impact the chances of survival minutely. If you happen to get a new strain of eyes which let you see a little better, you
might be able to see the predator slightly sooner than the rest of your herd.
2 is something I've talked to my paleontologist friend about before. Fossils are fairly hard to collect and a generally incomplete. It's pretty lucky if they get a few bones in the right spot, and completely amazing if they get a full skeleton of something or two skeletons depicting a story. While they are the best evidence for evolution, I think that it's impossible to say that they provide a great look at the past.
3 is a tough question for current theories to answer. I agree that the current models don't answer all the questions. That's where work is being done today though, right?