Yes. First, of the many
types of mutations known to occur, there are insertions [additions] and duplications as well as deletions and the rest. So yes, genetic material can be added or taken away, and in either case, these may be "viable".
Bare in mind, that according to
the National Center for Biotechnological Information, we have an overall average rate of 128 mutations per human zygote. These usually account for no more than the apparent differences between siblings who would otherwise be identical were it not for these mutations. As we grow, and our cells continue to replicate, we accumate more mutations, which is why even identical twins tend to become increasingly distinct the older they get. There's another important facet of evolution related to this which we will get into later. These new mutations gained as we grow increase the chances of being inherited by the next generation.
Some of these mutations can be harmful, but the vast majority are completely neutral, and a few are definitely beneficial.
For example, a
group of kinfolk in in the village of Limone Sul Garda in northern Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol. Consequently this family has no history of heart attacks dispite their high-risk dietary habits. This mutation was traced to a single common ancestor living in the 1700's, but has now spread to dozens of descendants. Genetic samples from this family are now being tested for potential treatment of patients of heart disease.
The Vadoma tribe, AKA the "Ostrich People", a family in Zimbabwe share a disctintive inherited mutation in their feet, (and sometimes in their hands also) which deprives them of all the bones for their three middle toes. These people claim the advantages of this include their ability to run faster and climb trees much better than normal-footed people.
Another example of new variance is the Glycophorin A somatic cell mutation (Jensen, R. H., S. Zhang, et al. (1997) which has been identified in some Tibetans, which allows them to endure prolongued periods at altitudes of 7,000 feet without succumbing to apoplexia, or altitude sickness. A different, but similar mutation was identified in high altitude natives in the Andes.
Another example of that is the CCR5-delta 32 mutation. About 10% of whites of European origin now carry it. But the incidence is only 2% in central Asia, and is completely absent among East Asians, Africans, and American Indians. It appears to have suddenly become relatively common among white Europeans about 700 years ago, evidently as a result of the Black Plague, indicating another example of natural selection allowing one gene dominance in a changing environment. It is harmless (or neutral) in every respect other than its one clearly beneficial feature; if one inherits this gene from both parents, they will be especially resistant (if not immune) to AIDS.
(source: Science-Frontiers.com / PBS.org)
Similarly, population genetics is being credited as one reason incidence of sickle-cell gene in African-Americans is apparently decreasing over time.
Theres also a family in Germany who are already unusually strong. But in one case, one of their children was born with a double copy of an anti-myostatin mutation carried by both parents. The result is a herculian kiddo who was examined at only a few days old for his unusually well-developed muscles. By four years old, he had twice the mucle mass of normal children, and half the fat. Pharmaceutical synthesis of this mutation is being examined for potential use against muscular dystrophy or sarcopenia.
There is also a family in Connecticut that has been identified as having hyperdense, virtually unbreakable bones:
Members of this family carry a genetic mutation that causes high bone density. They have a deep and wide jaw and bony growth on the palate. Richard P. Lifton, M.D., Ph.D., chair of the Department of Genetics, along with Karl L. Insogna, M.D., professor of medicine and director of the Yale Bone Center, and colleagues, traced the mutation to a gene that was the subject of an earlier study. In that study researchers showed that low bone density could be caused by a mutation that disrupts the function of a gene called LRP5. In the recent study, the Yale team mapped the familys genetic mutation to the same chromosome segment in LRP5. It made us wonder if a different mutation increased LRP5 function, leading to an opposite phenotype, that is, high bone density, Lifton said.
Family members, according to the investigators, have bones so strong they rival those of a character in the 2000 movie Unbreakable. If there are living counterparts to the [hero] in Unbreakable, who is in a terrible train wreck and walks away without a single broken bone, theyre members of this family, said Lifton. They have extraordinarily dense bones and there is no history of fractures. These people have about the strongest bones on the entire planet.
--Med.Yale.EDU
For another example apart from those Ive already listed today, weve also identified an emerging population of tetrachromatic women who can see a bit of the normally invisible ultraviolet spectrum.
I think if you study the nature of each of these, you'll see your first contention satisfactorily answered.
Second, I am unaware of any allegedly "irreduceably complex" structures still unexplained as of the close of the
Kitzmiller v. Dover case. Could you please list which specific ones you would like me to address?
Third, I can't show you any evidence in the fossil record, or anywhere ever proposed in evolutionary theory where one type of animal proceeds from any "significantly-different" type of animal. I can't show you that because it is a common creationist strawman which evolution doesn't actually claim. Every new species or genus, (etc.) that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were. All evolution is just a matter of incremental, superficial changes slowly compiled atop various tiers of fundamental similarities. Its a flowering variation of lineages each changing only in proportion, be it morphological or physiological, or a genetic enhancement such as some of those listed above.
A bride may become the basis for a new family with a new name. But she is still part of her mothers family too, and her grandmothers, and so on, and so will her children and grandchildren always be. That is their heritage, and it cant ever change no matter how much the brides new family does. In biology it is the same way. You can never grow out of your ancestry. So you still always belong to whatever group you came from, and so will your descendants, even if they begin a new sub-group you dont belong to. This is one of many reasons why birds are still [Diapsid] "reptiles" and humans are still primates.
Fourth, I'm studying paleontology, and that requires a lot of geology, and my first week of that was proof enough that the Earth has to be profoundly older than anything Biblical geneologies or Archbishop Ussher could have ever imagined. I'm just talking about the various types of formations that can't have been made in less than 30,000 years or so. But of course there's an awful lot more to it than that.
YECs often like to cite the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as if that were some indication that the earth could only be a few thousand years old. But that Law was conceived by Lord Kelvin, who was definitely no fan of evolution, yet his initial calculation of thermodynamics indicated that our planet had to be on the order of twenty million years old! I say his "initial" estimate, because he didn't know about radiactive elements generating their own heat
from huge natural reactors. The new estimate was closer to all the current estimates which tend to sit right around 4.6 billion years old.
You might also want to check out Dr.
Glenn Morton's perspective on this. He was a YEC who went into the business of petroleum geology, finding fossil fuels in strata he could no longer deny had to be hundreds of millions of years old. Coincidentally, another YEC scientist,
Andrew Snelling, wrote for young-earth creationist publications while simultaneously working as a mainstream geologist where he himself dated rock formations in the billions of years old.
Of course everything we know about
archaeology, or
cosmology only ever indicate the same thing again and again. Is there anything else you really need to see to convince you that the earth just can't be as young as YECs want you to believe it is?
The
earliest fossils known so far are stromolites of cyanobacteria dated at 3.6 billion years-old. Is that long enough to develop to the level of modern species today?
I should add that natural selection is not the only evolutionary mechanism. There is also genetic drift, and artificial selection which relies on the same principles -except of course that someone has planned in advance what features are desired.
"According to the theory of evolution, the basic mechanisms that produce evolutionary change are natural selection (which includes ecological, sexual, and kin selection) and genetic drift; these two mechanisms act on the genetic variation created by mutation, genetic recombination, and gene flow."
--Wikipedia
Also, (so that I don't waste posts playing twenty questions) I would like you to express each of your contentions or concerns as precisely as possible, beginning with your objection to common ancestry, which is of particular interest to me since my chosen field is cladistic taxonomy.
All I would need is another theory which explains all the available data better than any theory of evolution has thus far, and therefore offers at least as much as evolution has.
What practical application can be derived from YEC?
