A normal bird would die trying and that is what the would pecker would have been if it evolved. The fact is the wood pecker shouldn't even exist if evolution is correct. Any bird with a tendency to beat it's little brains out untill it died would most likely do so before it could mate, (namley evertime it tried to eat) and thus the head beating genes would fail to pass on to the next generation.

"1) continuity: recordkeeping about professional standards and training the next generation;"

Okay DNA does not record ever day living nor professional standards. It is read and only rewritten durring mating, it can not rewrite itself like a person can do to a city.

2) quality control, correcting small errors and

The "quality control" on DNA is falty, if there is an error in the code, it do anything about it at all. It "thinks" it is normal and moves on.

3) with DNA editions, there are far more mathematical units (individuals and generations) for the small changes to "catch on."

Editions? We have already determined that individul DNA can't do anything to it self and any mistakes that are there will pass on or not depending on what part of the DNA goes over with the other new part of DNA. So I see no editions here only the possibilty of things getting worse or staying the same.

Can any one point out a mutation that has been helpful, and not human made?

-Aaron

• Sorry, nothing you said here deserves an answer (nt) - kantolfir2 - September 15, 2002 - 03:04 UTC
  • I did. - emperor__alikar - September 15, 2002 - 03:14 UTC
    • Your high school biology course taught you THAT about DNA? - kantolfir2 - September 15, 2002 - 15:53 UTC
      • hmm maybe I was unclear - emperor__alikar - September 15, 2002 - 18:40 UTC
        • I paid for my DNA course with wage labor; you want a free class - kantolfir2 - September 16, 2002 - 00:55 UTC
          • Thank you - emperor__alikar - September 16, 2002 - 03:16 UTC
            • Send money please - kantolfir2 - September 16, 2002 - 03:58 UTC
    • And how many days did you go over DNA? - richard - September 15, 2002 - 16:44 UTC
    • Interesting... - kc2gwx - September 15, 2002 - 17:09 UTC
      • Naive... - kantolfir2 - September 15, 2002 - 18:02 UTC
        • so complex... - emperor__alikar - September 15, 2002 - 18:41 UTC
          • And as all your arguments... - richard - September 15, 2002 - 18:44 UTC
            • Name calling. - emperor__alikar - September 15, 2002 - 19:18 UTC
      • well since I've tried to explain... - richard - September 15, 2002 - 18:43 UTC
        • why? - emperor__alikar - September 15, 2002 - 19:19 UTC
          • Not name calling. I'm characterizing! - richard - September 15, 2002 - 20:13 UTC
            • Still name calling. - emperor__alikar - September 16, 2002 - 03:08 UTC
        • Not the same people. - kc2gwx - September 16, 2002 - 03:39 UTC