Beaks are made by DNA? So why does every creature with DNA, not have a beak?
Is it because the genes of those creatures don't code for a beak?
So let me guess. A mutation is going to arrange the code just right to get a beak, then more mutations will do the same for two perfectly useful wings, right?
You can't give me an example, can you? I asked. Where are they?
How many generations of mutations in bacteria do we observe? Where are their beaks? Actually since they are soft bodied, where are their wings?
The fruit fly experiments produced what? A useless pair of wings... Why not a tail?
Is it because the existing DNA in the fly codes for wings, so that's all they can pass on, and nothing new is introduced into the egg? Certainly they don't mate with lizards, do they?
It's not just the DNA. It's the code, isn't it? We need the codons in the genes, right? ...and where do the genes come from? They are passed on, aren't they?
Mutations can only work on what's there. They don't create anything new, do they?
I explained to you that you are the one saying that A does X, therefore what prevents A from doing Z, yet you are not explaining how that is compatible with the scientific method.
Actually you are not explaining anything pertaining to methods of science, just stating a known fact, and then claiming that that fact dictates that an untested claim is true.
That's pseudoscience.
I keep asking you, but not once are you touching the question - not once do you mention the scientific method, and how it is used in your claim. Claims i am taking careful note of.
Why won't pigs ever grow wings outside or inside the womb.
Do you know where the last statements I used come from?
Mutations
There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles — mutations could not have done it.
Source -
Mutations (2 of 2)
Is this a good and accurate source for one to consult on the theory of evolution?
This is the same source I quoted in the OP presenting information as though it is true science, yet using the same pseudoscience claims.
Should I scrap this site, or do you think it is good?
Then you agree with me that the statements you are making fit the definition of
pseudoscience.
- statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method.
Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation...
No scientific method can be applied to determine that pigs can grow wings and fly. Certainly claiming that mutations will do the job is wishful thinking - a mere speculation.
On the source's page, we have a picture of what a single mutation can do.
[GALLERY=media, 8731]Curled Ears by nPeace posted Nov 19, 2018 at 2:45 PM[/GALLERY]
What's the biggest effect mutations can cause, where major change is concerned?
Some really important phenotypic changes, like DDT resistance in insects are sometimes caused by single mutations. A single mutation can also have strong negative effects for the organism. Mutations that cause the death of an organism are called lethals — and it doesn't get more negative than that.
Mutation are ultimately damaging when you are talking about major body plans.
If you have examples that show otherwise, you can share them.