Which of the 6 forms of evolution are you talking about? Random mutation what is that? Are you trying to say that there is beneficial mutation that creates something better? If so I would like to see it since no one has ever seen one or produced one. Evolution is a lie. Everything ever used to try to prove it has been proven a lie. Do you have some evidence? If you do you would be the first ever.
Sorry. Just saw this.
Random mutation that is either "selected for", "selected against", resulting in subtle changes to a species over time. Remember I'm not saying evolution turns fish into birds.
Mutations that are beneficial to the offspring that carry the mutation and confer some advantage to those offspring over those that don't. The mutation is "selected for" and propagates. If the advantage were significant the mutated form could in theory completely replace the unmutated form over time.
Mutations that are detrimental to the offspring put them at a disadvantage so the mutation is less successful and the mutation is "selected against" and not likely to propagate beyond 1 generation.
Some mutations are not helpful nor harmful and therefore are not "selected for" nor "selected against". These mutations may persist for many generations but there is no particular reason for them to become dominant nor fade away absent some localized event that wipe out the population as a whole.
Without putting any effort or research into it whatsoever the most flagrantly obvious evidence that the above process occurs is antibiotic resistant bacteria. Bacteria multiply more rapidly than most lifeforms and can go through hundreds of generations in a short time. Every new generation is an opportunity for the introduction of a mutation either due to a transcription error while the copying of the DNA or due to damage to the DNA by the various types of radiation that reach the earth. Any mutation that lets even a small number of bacteria better-survive our efforts to wipe them out with antibiotics will increase the prevalence of that mutation in the bacteria population. In less than 100 years of antibiotic use there are now bacteria that can survive even our most sophisticated antibiotics and kill someone.
Viruses aren't even alive (they are non-living DNA in a carrier mechanism) but since they are code they can be damaged/mutated in the same ways that reproductive DNA is damaged (transcription errors and radiation) and we see viruses mutate, sometimes to their advantage and our detriment, all the time.
First hand observation of selective processes in higher life forms is harder as we humans don't live through hundreds, thousands, or millions of generations. Still, scientists can and do observe subtle changes in a species as a response to selective pressure. Rather than talking about finch beak size changes in response to droughts and such (not Darwin's observations, we're talking 1970's and 80's) it seems tidier to do it another way.
If evolution does not occur in any form, and if we assume that no entity (divine or otherwise) periodically drops new life forms onto the planet, then we would have to conclude that the life forms we see on Earth today have always been here, in exactly their current form. The life forms we see today would be a subset of the original set of life forms because many life forms have become extinct over time. We have no more Tyrannosaurs or Dodo birds, though we know they used to be here. This conclusion that all of the life forms presently on the planet have been here from day one, in their current form, doesn't really work though because we have no fossil record for most of them until very recently, if at all. You won't find any gazelle skeletons cohabiting the same layer of rock with triceratops. You won't find any **** sapien skeletons cohabiting the same layer of rock as **** habilis.
If there is no evidence of most current day life forms in the fossil record with the long-extinct life forms where did they come from? I don't have an answer to that. You'll probably remember that I said I don't necessarily believe that evolution has, over time, turned fish into birds. I believe that
may be possible, but I see no
proof of it. If I don't believe that birds have always been here, and I don't believe evolution turns fish into birds, then where did birds come from (or fish for that matter)? I don't know. And I'm fine with that. Because "I don't know but I'm open to evidence and proof" is a more intelligent answer (to me) than "by magic".
