Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_smith
the way we can change and shape DNA and do Gene splicing and design new organisms like glowing mice just like we are writing a computer program for me shows there is more to life then strict Darwinian evolution tells us.
|
surely this ability to 'change and shape' DNA is a strong point in favour of the method of genetic change behind evolution via natural selection. Except when humans manipulate an animals genes at this level, we are dictating the changes based on our understanding of the function of genes, and are able to produce a predictable outcome. Random mutation is just that - random, and the resulting organism survives or dies because of it (or in spite of it).
What specifically is it about evolution via natural selection that is the sticking point for you - the bit you just can't accept?
Another point I would like to make is that as a theory, evolution via natural selection is being tested all the time. Every (related) experiment and observation tests it, and so far it has not failed. If ever there was an observation or experimental result that did not fit with this theory, it might open a chink in its armour, but so far there is nothing that does not fit - no "rabbit fossils in the precambrian" as
Haldane put it.
Adam
Adam