Typical emotional response by anti-evolution zealot when they have no rational argument. ;-)
jda: "So, let’s see just how much you have studied the “science” of evolution."
So, let's see just how much you have studied the "science" of anti-evolution. ;-)
jda: "First, a very simple question: Where are the transitional remains of the woodpeckers that hadn’t evolved enough to survive the tremendous force of hammering their beaks against a tree?"
First, a very simple question: Do you know anything whatever about woodpeckers -- have you ever actually studied them scientifically?
I thought not. So here are some basics:
The fossil record is somewhat sparse, however...
Woodpeckers are classified scientifically in the Family of Picidaes, of which today there are hundreds of species of worldwide, grouped into dozens of genera, tribes and sub-families.
The earliest discovered woodpecker fossil is dated to 25 million years ago, though other evidence suggest perhaps 50 million years since the first woodpecker-like bird appeared.
A Piculet and Wryneck:
All Picidaes are omnivorous and opportunistic eaters, meaning they will eat whatever small insects or seeds they can find.
But each is adapted to its particular ecological niche, some of which require more heavy-duty pecking than others.
So, it is those hundreds of different species, and the ranges of "degrees of difficulty" in extracting their meals which can help explain woodpecker evolution.
Some birds even today simply reach into the crevices of plants to extract insects or seeds, while others hammer away to remove the wood.
Indeed, some species live in treeless areas such as deserts, where their pecking skills are less necessary to survival.
So, even though the fossil record is somewhat sparse, you can still see today in hundreds of Picidae species, a wide range of pecking evolution, which suggests how some of those Picidaes became nature's avian jackhammers.
The answer is: baby-steps.
jda: "Now, a test (I’ll provide the answers..."
Questions 1-7 all refer to human evolution.
Yes, I am familiar with the issues involved in your little "test".
The basic answer is that work is ongoing to discover explanations, some of which I'll mention below.
jda: "2. So, then, how many nucleotides are different in the human genome versus that of a chimpanzee?..."
3. How many natural DNA changes per generation are considered non-lethal?..."
First, the percentage of divergence depends on precisely what and how you measure.
Recent results using different methods range from 87% to 95% to 98.5% identical DNA between humans and chimpanzees.
Second, in post #49 above, I showed some of the "transitional forms" separating modern humans from more ape-like predecessors.
Here it is again:
Third, there is no known "lethal" DNA mutation rate -- since everything depends on which exact base-pairs mutate: some are lethal, most harmless.
But studies have shown that every generation experiences some DNA mutations, that these accumulate over time, and can actually be used to track back family histories over dozens, hundreds and more generations.
These studies also show that DNA mutation rates vary all over the board, by orders of magnitude, when comparing the least mutations to the most.
This alone suggests that under conditions of extreme environmental stress, a population's mutation rates could increase enough to speed-up normally slower evolution.
jda: "6. Using this analysis, has there been enough time for man to “evolve” from chimpanzees?"
Questions like this display your collosal ignorance, since no scientist ever claimed humans evolved from chimpanzees.
Rather, humans and chimps share common ancestors, who may even have been more human-like, and from which chimps somewhat devolved.
This idea comes from recent studies showing more chimp DNA mutations than human.
Finally, if you were in the least interested in what actual science has to say about genetic divergence between humans and chimps -- which of course, you are not -- but if you were, you might start by studying this article.
jda: "Finally, to see if you’re paying attention: 50% of our DNA is the same as a banana - why aren’t we considered half banana and to have “evolved” from a banana (although I do know some whose intelligent matches that of a banana, so maybe we are and did)???"
Sorry, FRiend, but your question here is less than honest.
Yes, I know, you think it's all a big joke, so yuk it up!
The fact is that all DNA based life on earth -- which is to say, everything that scientists classify as "living" -- shares some DNA elements.
Indeed partial studies suggested up to 35% common DNA between humans and green algae.
This would represent those basic life functions of cells.
More thorough studies, counting in "junk DNA" suggest numbers in the 2% range for E Coli to 15% for, say rice.
The fact remains that all life on earth, from algae to plants & animals share some key DNA, and this suggests divergent descent from common ancestors.