RE: Mutations disprove the theory of upward evolution
October 4, 2013 at 10:15 am
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2013 at 10:16 am by Chas.)
(October 4, 2013 at 9:42 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:(October 4, 2013 at 9:38 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: How so? Please demonstrate how the primitive archaea that are still around are more advanced than their ancestors.
Is it "upward evolution" when traits are lost? Like say, sight in bats?
If the primitive archaea are still around, does that disprove evolution?
No.
(October 4, 2013 at 9:45 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:(October 4, 2013 at 9:44 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: No. The primitive forms are still around. Chemosynthesizers are still pumping away in oxygen-starved environments where the aerobes can't survive.
If they are the same as the originals that may disprove the theory of evolution.
No, it won't.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
