L. Spetner, Not By Chance, The Judaica Press, Brooklyn, New York, 1997, 131–132
You’ll note, this is a physicist in a popular press book. So its something out of his field, where the science community at large has no chance to correct it.
Do you find this kind of thing in the science journals of the actual field, where the scientists who actually work with this stuff have the chance to keep it? No.
They don't define science the same way?
Nope. They disregard contrary evidence, they lie and misrepresent, and they have UP FRONT declared that they will NOT accept any results that contradict their faith based position. That ISN”T science.
secondly the mutations we hear of are always negative and bad for the host.
Some are. Many aren’t. Most are neutral. A cross section of what the public hears of isn’t a valid case study. If you don’t read the science journals, would you find out about most of the good ones? No.
And what about the widely published ones, like nylonase?
So no science needed there
Actually, yes you do.
[qutoe]
Thirdly, the mutations you always hear of are losing information.
[/quote]
Really? So every negative mutation you’ve heard about is losing information? Nope. Try Down’s Syndrome. An extra copy of a chromosome. Negative, more nucleotides. More information. And you’ve done the studies showing that every negative mutation is brought about by mechanisms that reduce the number of nucleotides? Bring in your sources.
So it's not all unheard of to make conclusions that mutations can't do what evolution wants them to.
Evolution is not a being that can decide what it wants or does not want. And conclusions are not necessarily CORRECT conclusions. Correct conclusions actually take into account all the information.
Even if you have one or two or ten examples. What is the point in fighting pure logic?
It’s not pure logic. It’s fallacious, and in addition, it’s wrong.
Metherion