Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/18/02 1:46pm
In reply to:
Brian
's message, "But shouldn't" on 04/18/02 5:46am
>>True, but one thing I should point out is that many of
>>these adaptations are not due to genetic mutation, but
>>to ordinary recombination of genes within type.
>
>Your carefully qualified statement is true, but the
>way you have phrased it is well understood by
>evolutionists. Now do you dare take the next step and
>instead say “... ALL of these adaptations...”? If you
>do, then you better be able to prove it.
I do not make the claim that all the adaptations are result of ordinary recombination.
>>Bacteria that get immunity from mutations are
>>“evolutionary cripples” because they experience
>>harmful side effects from the mutation.
>
>Again, is this the norm, or an absolute rule?
Probably just “the norm.” I’ve read that bacteria often do get harmful side effects from such mutations, whether or not these particular mutations always have harmful side effects is not something I’m aware of.
>>Because the resistances to antibiotics in bacteria
>>(and other changes we see in life forms) result only
>>in varied alleles in genes that already exist
>
>I challenge you to give documented proof of this
>statement.
Well, it is what we see in such mutations and that sort of thing was what I read in high school biology. Correct me if I’m wrong, but no new genes have been created from such mutations. I challenge you to give documented proof showing otherwise.
>>... one cannot simply extrapolate the directly
>observable
>>changes we see in these organisms to obtain
>>macroevolutionary changes.
>
>Are you familiar enough with the accumulated studies
>in this field to be able to make such a definitive
>statement?
I don’t have to be that qualified to read what I’ve read. Again, what I’ve read is that so far as all observations go, we haven’t seen any new genes being created. We’ve seen new alleles in pre-existing genes, duplications of pre-existing genes, etc. but not any new genes. I’ve also read that as far as all observations go, mutations have only produced variation within types (in the manner I’ve described earlier) and given those direct observations, one cannot extrapolate to produce new types. Perhaps macroevolution can be rationally supported, but merely pointing out these directly observable changes will not do the job. Other evidence is needed.
>>Creation can simply claim
>>that these variations are only “horizontal” changes
>>that will never result in creating a more complex life
>>form because of this. More work needs to be done here
>>if you wish to claim that evolution explains this set
>>of data better creation.
>
>Creation can say anything it wants, since its basic
>starting point is an omnipotent God.
You appear to be very confused on what creation actually is in the context that I’ve used it in. Creation per se does not include an omnipotent God or any God for that matter, any more than evolution includes atheism. I strongly suggest you read Mere Creation to learn what the opposition is really about. Fighting a straw man is hardly very constructive.
>Science doesn’t
>have that ability to assign ad-hoc solutions, it must
>work with what it can understand from the evidence.
That’s what many scientists who accept creation try to do.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 