Because I dont believe there is any real evidence for that.
They are all real but they dont mean that it allows animals to change from one creature into a totally new one. That goes beyond the point of the evidence as far as I can see.
Isn't it then a good thing that the Theory of Evolution does not say that? The ToE does not say that one creature will turn into a totally new one, nor does it say that one species will turn into a totally new one either.
What it does say is that a new species branching off from the old one will be *slightly* different from the one it came from. Then that new species branches off from the previous species and a new *slightly* different species from the one it derived from will exist. Rinse and repeat over and over and you will get a species that could be *very* different from the original one we started with but is not *totally new*. There will still be a number of traceable similarities with the original one. What we might get is a species different enough that we will give it a new name.
Mutations happen but they are limited to changes within what is already there.
You are both right and wrong here. What mutations do is change the DNA of the individual. That change may or may not result in a change in the way the organism looks or operates. Generally though the mutations alter the genetic make up of genes already present so mostly they are modifications and not totally different. So you are right to a degree here. There may be some exceptions so I am not going to make any blanket statements but this is mostly the way it works.
Describing this modification of genetic makeup repeated many times is usually termed Descent with Modification. The ToE predicts this and this is what we find. For the most part evolution is modification of what is already there so what we have is different versions of what is "already there" and those different versions, if successful, tend to stay with the organism's descendents. Again, wash, rinse and repeat over and over and you get evolution.
They are mainly negative and dont add new info.
The mutations are mostly neutral and the idea that mutation does not add new information doesn't work as an argument. It has examined many times and the idea simply doesn't fly. I can discuss this if you wish but for now will just keep it as this.
Natural selection works for creatures to change to adapt to their environment.
True and if those changes are genetic then may well pass on to the descendents so those changes will then be in the gene pool.
But it is limited to what is already there. what is already in the gene pool.
This is where you get into trouble. Mutations are changes to what is already there so in the next generation what is already there is different from the previous generation. That is why evolution can be defined as changes in the gene pool of a population over time.
So a bird can change its beak but it cannot turn into a fish.
True but that bird population can change into a somewhat different bird population and the process goes on and on.
Evolution is really simple and pretty much inevitable is you have three factors operating
1) Variation of traits in replication- This is where mutations come in.
2)Heritability of the traits-this is the key.
3) Differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment-AKA Natural Selection.
That's it. If you have this, you will have evolution as long as life exists and we have found no limit to how far this process can go. This is what explains the diversity of life we find on Earth.
Dizredux
Perhaps scientists require evidence, and your "memo" certainly isn't any. But that's just a detail.
