Biological Evolution across family, order, class...kingdom, etc.

“[Pro] will remind [Con] that if he can put an argument in here, then he can provide why Creationism could offer a better explanation for certain things.” I'll do that when I can to support my position, but is this a way of saying I have BOP, too? Please explain. “If a child is born with a recessive trait that doesn't show up in the chat child as dominant, then the child (though he may not show it physically) will most likely have that trait in his genes and will be able to pass it down to the next generation.” I would agree except for the “most likely.” If a child is born with a recessive and domiant gene, in most situations, the recessive gene will be covered by the dominant, but there will still be a chance the recessive gene can be passed on. The chance is based upon the mate's genes. It is entirely possible for the recessive gene to be eliminated in offspring who are the result of mixed/mixed (Gb x Gb) trait or mixed/dominant (Gb x GG) only trait parents. 25% of the wolves in my example would be that way(GG). The recessive trait is elimanted from the population until bred back in. “There is a mutation or defect that some people have that gives them a tail. I haven't fully looked into the science of this, but my best guess is that it is a vestigial organ we are trying to slowly get rid of, but it may as well be a recessive trait that is still being passed on, but we are trying to weed it out. When the people who have this trait eventually die out, the tail trait will die out unless another mutation occurs to give us a tail.” There are people born with “tails.” Some are psuedo tails (fatty tissue with no true tail structure). Some have been SAID to contain extra vertebra and muscle. http://io9.com... Let's assume that we have a baby born with a true, vertebra/nerve chord/muscle tail, like Tanooki Mario. Now let's determine, for real, if this is a throwback beyond tailless apes back to monkeys. If it is vestigal, that means it has been genetically with us all along, millions of years, waiting for the right people to get together and combine the right traits to bring out the recessive tail in their offspring. If it is merely a mutation, that means it is a freak accident produced by enviornmental factors effecting genetics that were NOT present in monkeys to produce a tail. To figure out which one, you must know which monkey group our ape ancestor came from, then map that monkey group's genetics to see if they have the same gene for a tail that caused the human to have a tail. If we're going to go through all the time and expense to do this, we don't want to be sloppy. We must be scientific and eliminate variables. Assuming you could determine the genetics of the monkey we came from, you'd have to make sure those actually did get passed on to us through our ape ancestor, too. So you must determine which ape group we came from and map that genome, too, to see if the trait persisted through the ape stage of our evolution. Finally, you have to determine if the gene was actually lying in wait in the human genome, or if it merely reappeared here due to a chance mutation that reproduced a tail gene(s). “Now another vestigial organ is wisdom teeth. Some say this was used by ancestors to grind plant food back then. Now sounds good, but why would we be losing them? Our jaws are getting smaller due to natural selection. A mutation occurred where our jaws became smaller and nature favored the small jaws over the bigger jaws.” Wisdom teeth are a little different. They serve a definite purpose in humans, especially those with jaws to accommodate them. “Sometimes these teeth can be a valuable asset to the mouth when healthy and properly aligned, but more often, they are misaligned and require removal.” http://www.webmd.com... Why is the smaller jaw favored? A strong jaw can be attractive in men and women, http://www.womenlargejaw.com...so it is not a detriment in finding a mate, and those who have jaw space don't have to be concerned about expensive removal and are less prone to infection due to impacting or surgery. Also, mutation does not equal natural selection. Natural selection requires no new information to be added, only less advantagous information to be eliminated. Could natural selection favor a mutation? Yes. Does is have to? No. Now bear mutation: I think this is what Pro was talking about. http://www.cosmosontv.com... (three slides starting with this one. If Pro has a link to the actual video, that would be great.) Polar bears are much more than albino brown bears. In fact there are already white brown bears that aren't polar bears. http://www.bear.org... (See coloration) Polar bears have webbed feet, not just white hair, but transparent filiment hair that act as optical fibers to direct sunlight to jet black skin for optimal heat absorbsion, as well as many other adaptations specifically for their enviornment. http://www.polarbearsinternational.org... http://seaworld.org... http://www.marinebio.net... The reason I bring all this up is because NDT's information gives short shrift to the differences between brown and polar bears: Explaining the origin of polar bears by a simple hair pigment mutation is inadequate. Also, no evidence is provided to back up the assertion the two species became distinct because of mutation. All the genes could have been present in a common ancestor, but the common ancestor was bred out of existance, and only the two cousins were left. Knowing what exactly happened, or even if there was a common ancestor, would require detailed observational knowledge of bears quite far back in history, or at least genetic code from a viable common ancestor to both bears. It seems far more logical that a pool of useful information was distilled to produce sub-species, rather than a pool of useful genetic information arose from chaos and natural pressures. To demonstrate me wrong, please show useful information for a functioning system arising from natural pressure.