It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by one_enlightened_mind
reply to post by Unit541
Here is why that scenario cannot be used to explain biological evolution; the blablas will never be anything more than blablas. The webbing, while it would seem to be a defect, is not actually so. It existed within the blasblas genetic code, and could have remained dormant in the greater population for various reasons (one being that environmental pressure had not presented itself yet). In any case it was there in their genes. You can argue and say it was a genetic mutation... but you must present a scientific genetic proof that such a feature was never, ever, previously coded for. Ever.
If you were to succeed in your proof I would still be perfectly happy conceding that an observable and proven form of natural selection helped a species survive, but biological evolution has not occured. Why not? Because the webbing has the potential to fade away. This has been observed in the wild.
Proving evoluton a fact is only possible when you can demonstrate with actual undeniable genetic evidence of a blabla evolving into a whatchacallit (In other words, a brand new organism).