Re: Just a funny thought

Bodester (
Wed, 10 Mar 1999 23:44:53 -0500

Thanks Bill, that's closer to what I'm looking for. I am still curious then
where, if it wasn't fish -> reptiles -> mammals -> etc.... what the proposed
idea is. Where did the first creatures on land come from then? or vice
versa. If it is a "popular misunderstanding", as Dawkins put it, what is the
actual proposal?

With regards to Tim's statement, I'm curious if there are any mutations that
result in an increase of genetic material and also are beneficial (so any
increases can survive the natural selection process). That's what I meant by
positive mutations. I've heard of beneficial mutations that are losses of
genetic information, but no increases. When Tim said "They're out there"
what I'd like is where exactly they are. I don't want to sound like a jerk,
but I really like having things backed up with examples. A theory can be
great, but w/o actual examples to support it, there is no logical support
for it, as has been discussed here earlier. Thanks,



>This question was discussed last year as copied below. (I'm still having
>Glenn Morton withdrawals. If we can't have Glenn here with us, maybe we
>can at least quote him occasionally.)

> "Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
> evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in
> genome?"
> Dawkins is shown starring at the ceiling for 11 seconds which includes
> sharp in take of air. and then he resumes with the unresponsive :
> "There is a popular misunderstanding of evolution that says that fish
> turned into reptiles and reptiles turned into mammals and and so
> ought to be able to look around the world today and look at our