Argument #3: Mutations

[Jackalope]

You know, it occurs to me Rev, that before you post the stuff you rip off from AIG, that you might want to cross-check it against what real biologists actually have to say on the matter, lest it make you look foolish.

I'm having an odd sensation of deja vu.

FYI, I didn't get that from AIG.

FYI, wherever YOU got it from, it likely originated at AIG - that old chestnut has been floating around, thoroughly debunked forever it seems.

In any case, the link I provided you soundly refutes it. Perhaps you should go read the sources they cite. You know, because real research quotes sources.

Enjoy.

[Revelation777]

[Jackalope]

[Jackalope]

The so called new information that many evolutionists claim that takes place is a result of a corruption of already existing information. The examples you cite fail to achieve a "gain in functioning" mutation. In fact if there were an evolution from molecule to man we should readily see an abundance of this occurrence, we don't.

Incidentally, Rev - wrong again. The material I provided answers that objection in the very first bullet point.

Saying "neener neener" and repeating your claim is in no way a rebuttal.

[Ravenshire]

Carl Sagan, stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." However, mutations which apparently result in new traits in an organism are due to the corruption of existing information rather than the formation of mutations gaining new information. This reality conflicts against what would be expected for the advancement of evolution.

Oh yay. Another bullshit "argument" that's been debunked a shitload of times already that will be defended to the death (or at least 60-70 pages) by someone who thinks it's "fresh" and "compelling."

Rev, it's neither. Will you please quit posting this drivel without first checking with reputable sources.

[Jackalope]

I know this has been pointed out to you before, but it bears repeating: even if you could[*] prove every single aspect of naturalism wrong, that still moves you not even one iota closer to making a case for god, creationism, or any other foolish thing you care to claim. It moves us closer to "we don't know".

Congratulations. You're rooting for ignorance.

[*] you can't.

[max-greece]

[Minimalist]

This reality conflicts against what would be expected for the advancement of evolution.

And what the fuck would a bible-thumping douche like you know about it?

Go read your bible. Leave the heavy thinking to others.

[Anomalocaris]

At some point even the most hardened evolutionist must admit that Christians simply don't evolve, ever.

[GrandizerII]

Carl Sagan, stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." However, mutations which apparently result in new traits in an organism are due to the corruption of existing information rather than the formation of mutations gaining new information. This reality conflicts against what would be expected for the advancement of evolution.

This whole "gaining new information" and "corruption of existing information" is just creationist talk. From the perspective of evolutionary biologists, there is no "gaining" or "corrupting" with regards to "information" because these are relative terms when related to the topic of evolution (which should not be confused with "advancement").