Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Already addressed. Go back, re-read.This doesn't address the post and evidence I linked recently about mutations being able to evolve new functions. There is absolutely no genetic evidence included in these posts. Just talk about the theory which is just talk. There needs to be solid evidence addressing these issues.
Archaeopteryx said:
Actually, he did. He spent years collecting the evidence. In any case, it has been over 150 years since Darwin published his seminal work. Since then, multiple parallel lines of evidence have provided further support to evolution. The theory is so well established that it is considered foundational to contemporary biology.
"This goes nowhere near addressing what I have posted. This is just talk with no backup and is nothing to do with the peer reviewed genetic based papers that were posted." We often hear some say evolution is fact but when we go into the details about how the process actually works it is a different story.
Archaeopteryx said:
Those cases that you call "variations within a kind" are exemplary of evolution. The theory does not predict a crocoduck, which is what creationists seem to expect of evolution.
"This doesn't address what I have posted. No one is saying anything about crocoducks. We are talking about the genetic ability and processes as defined by the tests I posted. This is a detailed test done on the ability for proteins to evolve new functions through random multi mutations".
Archaeopteryx said:
I recommend watching Aron Ra's brilliant Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series. Specifically, the 11th episode in the series, which focuses on macroevolution.
This also doesn't not address what I have posted. You seem to think that this one off post is the answer to everything. For starters what I posted has nothing to do with creationism. It is genetic testing and there are peer reviewed papers to support this. The episode on video doesn't go into any peer reviewed testable evidence. It just continues the story that because there is micro evolution there must be macro evolution. But all of the examples used only show the great variations of the same type of animals.
Dogs are dogs no matter if big or small or good looking or ugly or wolves or poodles. They have been dog types for millions and millions of years. The same for all the other creatures. Its just the great variations within those types for which evolution says can also make one creature into another. But apart from all that talk the actual tests show it cannot happen. Changes are with recombining or loss of existing genes. The tests show limits and they also show the opposite of evolution where there is a loss of info and a creature becomes less fit and not more able to survive. So you havnt addressed the post and have have given some irrelevant answer.
Upvote
0