What you’re saying sounds like Lamarckism, where, for example, mice with their tails cut off should give birth to tail-less mice. It’s been pretty roundly debunked because, well, for one reason, the mice have tails, even if their parents’ tails were cut off.
But maybe you meant something else, in which case, do go on.
And we are, in a sense, immature gorillas. There’s a whole buttload (technical term, there) of neoteny involved with modern humanity. A lot of our physical features are similar to juvenile features of the other great apes. (Interestingly, we also select for neoteny in our domestic animals…a lot of domestic dog behavior is puppy behavior for canines in the wild).
Humans have wisdom teeth, tailbones and an appendix that used to come in handy but we don’t need any longer. The reason why we have lower back pain and that childbirth is so painful (and sometimes dangerous) to humans is that we evolved to stad upright so quickly that our pelvis didn’t have time to properly adapt.
Let’s just put it this way: If there was a Creator with a “master plan”, he or she is an idiot. Why did the “Creator” give the panda the most ineffecient digestive system of any creature? Why did blind Mexican cave fish get eyes? (While they’re still in egg-form, their eyes begin to degenerate and a flap of skin grows over them.) Why do the ostrich and other flightless birds have wings?
It does. Mutagens, be they chemicals or cosmic rays, tinker with our DNA all the time. Sometimes the mutations cause cancer but mostly they don’t do much. However, when a mutation occurs in an egg or sperm cell it can result in a creature better able to function in its environment. On the other hand, most of those mutations either don’t do much or leave the creature less able to function in its environment, often to the point of killing it outright. So yes, our environment directly tinkers with our DNA while at the same time providing the crucible in which its tinkerings are tested.
I have a feeling that FRDE was meaning that environments tinkered with DNA in some sort of directly constructive way, rather than in a way that still required selection, although I might be reading too much into the post.
No, if you examine the paragraph closely, he is saying that scientists claim that one day poof! an amoeba turned into a creature he calls “B,” then one day poof! this B creature turned into man.
And since we don’t have any evidence of this “B” creature, the whole concept of evolution is therefore without any evidence.
My opinion is that to not believe evolution is real, you have to be ignorant of what its actual claims are. It’s pretty rare to come across someone who actually understands evolution and still disagrees that it happened.