Argument #3: Mutations

[Cato]

If you have not done the research to find out who the biologists are who would be suitable for quoting, and what work they did to lead them to modern basis of biology, then you have not done the basic research needed to qualify you to partake in a discussion about the topic of your own.

My mentioning this might disuade him, but I can easily imagine Rev mistakenly throwing up Michael Behe as an answer to your challenge.

[Mister Agenda]

The so called new information that many evolutionists claim that takes place is a result of a corruption of already existing information.

It is a change of already existing information.

The examples you cite fail to achieve a "gain in functioning" mutation.

I can give an equally supported refutation to this: no, they don't 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.

In fact, we do.

[Revelation777]

[Jackalope]

Way to address the rebuttals, Rev.

[GrandizerII]

[SteelCurtain]

Our genome is a literal record of beneficial mutations, Rev. Is it not at all alarming to you that you cannot find a single scientific reference for your claims? That you always find backup to your claims from people who quote mine scientists, and alter the meaning of what they wrote because they cannot find any scientific research that backs up their claim?

[Ravenshire]

[Esquilax]

[Rampant.A.I.]

[naturestubbs1]