Before I give you the six words, just to make sure we're on the same page. The process of evolution can be condensed into a simple definition, which is provided here by Talk Origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
So the 6 words that falsify common descent are as follows:
Mutations don't add new, selectable structures.
The ugly reality for evolutionists is bacteria-like creatures have got to somehow get out of the primordial soup by way of mutations, which serve as the raw material for selection, which theoretically could build up legs and arms and toes and organs and muscles and beaks and gills and teeth (or parts of these) ------ but there is no scientific evidence to show that this is even possible. Mutations cannot add whole new parts and they cannot generate new selectable novelty to add onto existing parts.
And by the way....please, I don't want to see any darwinist misconstrue the word, "structures" as changes in molecules or within cells. What I mean by "structures" are traits that are morphological in nature -- eyes, ears, beaks, paws, toes, feathers, noses, arms, gallbladders, muscles, etc..... There is certainly a differece between "structures" that are chemical and/or involve changes in molecules and "structures" which make a visual distinction/definition between organisms. The claim in this OP is that mutations cannot generate selectable "structures," as in the types of physical, outward, external, phenotypic structures that distinguish one animal from another and/or could give evidence of common descent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.
So the 6 words that falsify common descent are as follows:
Mutations don't add new, selectable structures.
The ugly reality for evolutionists is bacteria-like creatures have got to somehow get out of the primordial soup by way of mutations, which serve as the raw material for selection, which theoretically could build up legs and arms and toes and organs and muscles and beaks and gills and teeth (or parts of these) ------ but there is no scientific evidence to show that this is even possible. Mutations cannot add whole new parts and they cannot generate new selectable novelty to add onto existing parts.
And by the way....please, I don't want to see any darwinist misconstrue the word, "structures" as changes in molecules or within cells. What I mean by "structures" are traits that are morphological in nature -- eyes, ears, beaks, paws, toes, feathers, noses, arms, gallbladders, muscles, etc..... There is certainly a differece between "structures" that are chemical and/or involve changes in molecules and "structures" which make a visual distinction/definition between organisms. The claim in this OP is that mutations cannot generate selectable "structures," as in the types of physical, outward, external, phenotypic structures that distinguish one animal from another and/or could give evidence of common descent.
