Evolution: The ramfications of multiple mutations And the necessity for Informatio.

"Quote" In the gradual process from pelvic flap to pectoral fin, the necessary bones, muscles, tendons were each developed gradually. Though it's impossible to be sure exactly how it happened, it probably occurred something like this: first came nerves that allowed the fish to receive sensory input from the appendage. Muscles were then adapted from other purposes to allow a limited manipulation of it. Cartilage formed within the structure, giving it greater rigidity. Eventually, the cartilage became bone. The sarcolemma of the muscle fibers became elongated, making them more effective. These later became tendons. With all this in place, the transition from pectoral fin to leg was rather simple, in fact, we have transitionary fossils showing it.[2] Tiktaalik roseae is a prehistoric fish with several traits found in reptiles, among these, tiny feet in the pectoral region. "End of Quote" First of all, thank you for this quite interesting answer. Of course, but as you apparently failed to see, my whole case is based on the fact that having a "chunk" of an arm is of no useful purpose, and as such, stating one of evolution rule's: "The mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly." However, having smaller increments do not increase chances of survival. As a matter of fact, if I may say something: 99% of proteins mutation do have a negative effect of the individual, due to a loss of information or useless duplicates that use energy to no real purpose. As per your theory, an individual will have a small increment, the first being nerves. However, as I stated, having nerves STILL requires other factors to be of use, or they are a characteristic that will be lost to the individual by the mere probabilities law's that were first stated: If a mutation has no real purpose other than using energy, and therefore hampering the specie's to reproduce with the mutation, and it is then lost. As for the second point, stating mammalian reproduction, I was mentioning in the case of a "transition". As the evolution theory stated, reptilians came first and mutated through time to get to mammalians. However, if one reptilian have mammary glands that produce the necessary "food" through a mutation, he will not be able to pass on this characteristic, unless it had very precise survival goals, either it will just disappear through time, his only use being to drain energy. What I was referring to was the first mammal or transition between the two's. Having babies that develop in an exterior habitat without protection requires babies that have a mutation to live through it. Resulting again in multiple mutation that needs each other to bring a survival aspect. For the mutation's odds to happen in concurrence, I believe I can share an interesting insight on the numbers: "Quote" The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations. The odds of getting two mutations that are related to one another is the product of the separate probabilities: one in 107 x 107, or 1014. That's a one followed by 14 zeros, a hundred trillion! Any two mutations might produce no more than a fly with a wavy edge on a bent wing. That's a long way from producing a truly new structure, and certainly a long way from changing a fly into some new kind of organism. You need more mutations for that. So, what are the odds of getting three mutations in a row? That's one in a billion trillion (1021). Suddenly, the ocean isn't big enough to hold enough bacteria to make it likely for you to find a bacterium with three simultaneous or sequential related mutations. What about trying for four related mutations? One in 1028. Suddenly, the earth isn't big enough to hold enough organisms to make that very likely. And we're talking about only four mutations. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher, or even a fish into a frog. Contrary to popular opinion, drug resistance in bacteria does not demonstrate evolution. It doesn't even demonstrate the production of favourable mutations. It does demonstrate natural selection (or a sort of artificial selection, in this case), but only selection among already existing variations within a kind. It also demonstrates that when the odds that a particular process will produce a given effect get too low, good scientists normally look for a better explanation, such as the plasmid explanation for resistance to multiple antibiotics. "End of Quote" In result to these odds, I believe another quotation is needed: "Quote" Way back in 1967, a prestigious group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians gathered at the Wistar Institute to consider Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution Way back in 1967, a prestigious group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians gathered at the Wistar Institute to consider Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.10 All present were evolutionists, and they agreed, as the preface clearly states, that no one would be questioning evolution itself. The only question was, could mutations serve as the basis—with natural selection—as a mechanism for evolutionary change? The answer of the mathematicians: no. Just plain no! "End of Quote" As for your last point, "observed instances of Speciation" You will forgive me if I do not see the link between it and the actual matter, as no mutation of some sort are involved. And as a last comment: I had though that origin of life was a matter in link with the theory of evolution. Therefore, having a supposition about how it appeared would be quite logic for the theory. As I was apparently mistaken, the point is another one to debate. However, if you want to pursue it here, feel free and be pleased to do so. P.S: You will forgive me for not having cited any sources earlier on. Here they are: # 1 Novick, Richard, Plasmids, Scientific American, December 1980. # 2 Moorehead, Paul A., and Martin M. Kaplan, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Symposium No. 5, Wistar Institute Press,Philadelphia, 1967. # 3 Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985. # 4 http://www.answersingenesis.org... # 5 Dobzhansky, Theodosius, F. Ayala, L. Stebbins, and J. Valentine, Evolution, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1977. # 6 http://www.gate.net... # 7 Ayala, Francisco, The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American (and Scientific American book Evolution), September 1978. # 8 Beadle, George W., The Ancestry of Corn, Scientific American, January 1980. # 9 Ayala, Francisco, The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American (and Scientific American book Evolution), September 1978.