Thoughts

[Mister Agenda]

Actually, none of that is . . . anything you've ever bothered reading.

But what the hell. Enlighten us. In broad strokes, what is the theory of evolution?

I've read it, unlike you I look at opposing arguments. That's called studying, something it seems you want do. You trust in your evolutionary science gods to tell you what to believe and never question they could be wrong, where is that critical thinking atheist chairish. Short but true evolutionary science definition, bunk.

GC

Would you explain the theory of evolution, please? I promise not to criticize if you get it right. I just want to know if you understand the thing you're so confident that you know isn't so.

---

She can't defend against what is known, understand this DNA can't have new information add to it and thus eliminates the possibility for on kind to become another, period. This is something you can not get around.
GC

It's just an unsupported claim, nothing to get around. How information can be added to DNA is intimately known. The information comes from the environment, and point mutations and gene duplication provide the raw material for the selection process. In a way, the theory of evolution is all about how information gets added to DNA, and it was figured out before DNA was even discovered and all that was known was that variations are inherited, somehow.

---

Just a combination of existing information nothing new was added, the child is still a human being. I would think that those who believe that statement you made above would be appalled at abortion, just how could evolutionist kill off new information and justify it.
GC

It's a shame that you don't realize how ignorant it sounds when you remark that if the child of a human is still human, no information has been added to the child's DNA. What definition of information are you using?

The abortion remark is a non sequitur, and employs the naturalistic fallacy. We shouldn't base our determination of what is right and wrong on what nature does. We don't refuse to pump water uphill because it goes against the law of gravity, do we?

---

Nor does neo-Darwinism account for the massive number of mutations required just to implement an opportunistic re-purposing of an existing feature. I'm not saying that it cannot happen, just that "chance-in-the-gaps" isn't even close to being plausible.

Not even close to being plausible to you. Argument from personal incredulity.