Argument #3: Mutations

[Esquilax]

No way a series of "beneficial mutations" led to the various species of today. This article takes a good look at this.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

So, no... just... no.

Did you actually read the article? I did, and then I stopped when I got to the first outright lie; to get there I had to wade through quite a bit of general misunderstanding about what evolution is. I don't have time to debunk every bit of that complete embarrassment of an article, but I found someone who did.

Rev, you may be tempted to just skip over that article I just linked to, but I warn you: if you do so you will be mercilessly grilled. To do so would be dishonest, and you don't want to lie, do you?

- Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.

Did you read the paper that quote came from? Or did you just stick with the snarky commentary from idiots that confirmed what you already believed?

I went and looked up the actual article. What they were saying was that this specific kind of natural selection was uncommon within a relatively small space of evolutionary time. It certainly doesn't say what your fraudster creationist sources are trying to make it say, which is that they couldn't find any evidence of evolution. No, what the people who wrote the paper were saying was that one specific kind of it wasn't present within that period of human adaptation.

You are being lied to by every one of your sources, Rev, and you don't even seem to care.

Dear Atheist Friends,
It is time to look to the Creator for answers not empty theories grasping at straws.
Rev 777

Boy did you ever speak to soon.