Genus vs. Specie

[SkeletalFrog]

And to change parts of DNA ourselves causing a change isn't nature doing it by itself. Scales and feathers being made up of the same material doesn't really exlpain the change in structure by means of us changing so.ething causeing mutation not evolution.

Why would it be different? It doesn't matter if an albino appears via natural breeding or is created via genetic engineering, it's still an albino, and still has the albino allele. Indeed, if anything, Nature is superior to us at creating mutations, as our methods are regrettably rather crude still, and does so with great regularity. Indeed, statistically, every one of us has 10 *new* mutations, not present in either parent, that affect protein coding (and hundreds that are "silent").

In that case how come there is no. Fossile evidence of the much larger dinosaurs having feathers and why they were not covered with them instead of a headress like the Utah Raptor. Some with and some without.

The "feather headress" is Hollywood and art, not science - we have evidence of full, bird-style wing feathers on the arms of Velociraptor and other species, and current evidence suggests that they were fully feathered.

As for the larger ones, there are multiple issues. First and foremost is preservation - feathers preserve very rarely, and there's only a few deposits in the world of high enough quality to retain evidence of them. It's not that other things didn't have feathers, just that the coarse sediment prevented fine details from being preserved. Aside from that, there's the issue of size - feathers may provide valuable insulation for a small animal, but cause a large one to overheat, so large dinosaurs may have lost them, much like why elephants and rhinos are mostly bald. Finally, there's relationships - only one group of dinosaurs, the maniraptorans (including raptors, T. rex, and therizinosaurs), had what we could recognize as feathers. Others, including other predatory dinosaurs like Allosaurus and Spinosaurus, diverged before feathers evolved.

If we alter the DNA to cause a change its unatural so therfore I see it as we are causing a mutation rather than an actual evolutionary change. The only true evolution I believe is adaptation which doent usually involve a change in biological makeup or anatomy. Just the abilituy to cope and thrive in less than ideal conditions or worse.

Actually, adaptation is most often a change in anatomy or biochemistry. Look at the diversity in frog shapes - hoppers, walkers, jumpers, burrowers, swimmers, all with bodies adapted to their mode of locomotion. And no piddly stuff - doubling or halving of leg muscle mass, significant differences in muscle properties, springy tendons.


An excellent primer for this is actually the product of an old newsgroup, talk.origins. Their overall FAQ is here: Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution" with links to other FAQs about particular issues (including some you're raised). This other one here Introduction to Evolutionary Biology is a good introduction to evolution, its mechanics, common misconceptions, modern data, etc.

I will warn you that it's a bit dry and tends towards the "wall of text" style of presentation, but it's extremely useful, and should answer most of your questions quite thoroughly.