Mike, you and Eliyahu can scream as loud, large and ugly as you want but that will not change the fact that you are wrong.
There is no direct logically sound argument that shows this, they can only claim that this type of, "evolution" leads to macro-evolution, by pointing to tenuous inductions of fragmentary historical evidence. As you say, mutations are not largely favourable and the accumulation of them leads to error catastrophe.
Given a population of, say, a million individuals each having 10+- mutations different than their parents (not allele differences but actual genetic sequence mutations) adding 10,000,000 mutations to the population-wide genome each generation, you really are going to sit here and tell us that after 100,000 generations you have determined there cannot be any major changes?
You are the one defying sound logic, Mike.
From your source:
quote:
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism’s DNA)bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.
This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information.
Riiight. And arranging all the notes in a different way may make different sounds but will not produce any new music.
Bullshit!
quote:
These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
Amazingnatural selection can ‘test for possible uses’ of ‘non-functional’ (i.e., useless!) limbs in the wrong place. Such deformities would be active hindrances to survival.
Yeah, like having grown some pseudo-legs where the fins were supposed to be. Obviously useless ... unless ...
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
