| timmytomthegreat said: What misinformation?
I know a creationist geologist. He teaches at my university.
|
How does that work, geology is directly contradictory to the biblical account of creation on way too many levels. I refuse to believe that somebody who thinks the earth is less than 10000 years old is a competent geologist.
Onto your last post; firstly its a bit hard to reply to an entire article - especially seeing that you had to put no effort in yourself.
However the point about there being no mechanism for increasing genetic material is flat out wrong, there is such a process and its called gene duplication, where a segment of genetic material entirely duplicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication
I'm not replying to the pigs bred pigs paragraph as it seems to be entirely anecdotes and opinion.
There is no known natural process for generating new, more complex, traits. If a reptile changed into a bird, the reptile would have to, along with many other improbable changes, acquire the ability to produce feathers. To get a reptile to produce feathers requires new genes to produce the proteins necessary for the production of feathers. The chance of natural processes creating a new gene coding for a protein fundamentally different to those already present is essentially zero.
This paragraph makes the massive and misleading error of going REPTILES -> BIRDS, thats not what evolution claims as such. Evolution claims REPTILES->A->B->C->D->F->G->BIRDS. Also it gives no proof that the chances of a new protein and does not acknowledge that over enough time the probability of a small chance occuring approaches 1.
Where does it come from? Not from mutations — they degrade information.
Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful—it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.'
ARGH. Mutations degrade information is such complete and utter bullshit, mutations change information. Positively, negatively or more often with no effect at all. Evolution essentially discards negative mutation and spreads positive mutations throughout a population, thats how it works. Also Carl Sagan was an astronomer, not exactly qualified to say that.
researchers have found that the 'new' trait is not due to the appearance of a new protein, but the modification of an existing one
And if you modify something enough you get...? Seriously, what do they expect - a pig to suddenly give birth to a biped?
