Is this for real?

[tas8831]

YES, IT IS....

I came across this gem of creationist genetics wisdom (link not included to avoid humiliating the author):

"[re: alleles] NEVER has a new gene or alleles been produced, merely the sequence of what already existed copied in a new format, almost always consisting of loss of function and weakening of the overall viability.

We are not talking reproduction, where genes from different creatures are brought together to produce a multitude of variation, but mutation of what already exists within a creatures genome."


Discuss.

 

[sfs]

Discuss.

No. I'm already stupid enough and discussing this will just make me even more stupider.

 

[HitchSlap]

Source?

 

[Tolworth John]

"Evolution is the evidence for evolution."

If that is the standard of evidence, there is no hope you will accept real evidence.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Source?

Abiogenesis - don't know and don't care

 

[USincognito]

"Evolution is the evidence for evolution."

If that is the standard of evidence, there is no hope you will accept real evidence.

What do you mean by "real evidence"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What do you mean by "real evidence"?

(you just have got to love argument-by-google-image )

 

[Tolworth John]

What do you mean by "real evidence"?

from google:- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

So for evolution something that demonstrats that creature A has turned into creature B, or a process that demonstrates how new information appears in a creatures genetics.

To blindly say evolution is the evidence for evolution is to belief that evidence is not required.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

from google:- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

So for evolution something that demonstrats that creature A has turned into creature B, or a process that demonstrates how new information appears in a creatures genetics.

To blindly say evolution is the evidence for evolution is to belief that evidence is not required.

Evolutionists long ago stripped the requirement for evidence from Evolutionism, to keep their faith alive.

 

[DogmaHunter]

f
So for evolution something that demonstrats that creature A has turned into creature B

Genetics, geographic distribution of species, comparative anatomy, comparative genomics, the fossil record,....

, or a process that demonstrates how new information appears in a creatures genetics.

Mutation.

To blindly say evolution is the evidence for evolution is to belief that evidence is not required.

As you can see, it's not "blindly saying", but rather concluding from evidence.

 

[Tolworth John]

Evolutionists long ago stripped the requirement for evidence from Evolutionism, to keep their faith alive.

Yes evolution and atheism require a blind faith to believe the religeon of evolution and atheism.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolutionists long ago stripped the requirement for evidence from Evolutionism, to keep their faith alive.

I wonder what biologists have been doing then for the past 200 years.

 

[Tolworth John]

Genetics, geographic distribution of species, comparative anatomy, comparative genomics, the fossil record,....



Mutation.



As you can see, it's not "blindly saying", but rather concluding from evidence.

Sorry but there isn't a professor of paliontology who will go on record to say that fosil 'prove' evo;ution.
In fact it is the reverse. They are on record saying there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record and creationist are accused of quote mining when they quote them.

Mutation is evidence only of a loss of information.

 

[sfs]

Evolutionists long ago stripped the requirement for evidence from Evolutionism, to keep their faith alive.

It's not polite to lie about other people.

 

[sfs]

Sorry but there isn't a professor of paliontology who will go on record to say that fosil 'prove' evo;ution.

Scientists of any kind don't talk about "proving" anything. So this comment just means you don't understand science.

In fact it is the reverse. They are on record saying there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record and creationist are accused of quote mining when they quote them.

No, they really don't say anything like that. The creationists are accused of quote-mining them because they're guilty of quote-mining.

 

[sfs]

Mutation is evidence only of a loss of information.

Please provide the definition of "information" and how one measures it for this to be true. Because for any definition of information I can think of, mutation obviously can increase information.

 

[USincognito]

Evolutionists long ago stripped the requirement for evidence from Evolutionism, to keep their faith alive.

Why are you spreading falsehoods?

 

[USincognito]

from google:- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

That looks like a normal definition for evidence. I'm wondering what "real" evidence is and how it differentiates from plain old evidence.

So for evolution something that demonstrats that creature A has turned into creature B, or a process that demonstrates how new information appears in a creatures genetics.

Well, given that evolution doesn't propose being A "turning into being B, that's not an issue. Evolution is about population A splitting into population A.1. and A.2., etc.etc. And the process by which new information" forms in genomes has been understood for decades - mutation and subsequent selection.

To blindly say evolution is the evidence for evolution is to belief that evidence is not required.

No one I know says that particular tautology. I certainly didn't. There are many lines of evidence from the fossil record to comparative morphology to biogeography and the most powerful evidence, genetics.

 

[sfs]

"Evolution is the evidence for evolution."

If that is the standard of evidence, there is no hope you will accept real evidence.

Who are you quoting here?

 

[USincognito]

Yes evolution and atheism require a blind faith to believe the religeon of evolution and atheism.

Given that evolution isn't a religion and atheism is really a lack of religion, the failure of your conclusion does not bode well for your premise.