Quick creationists! Come up with something!

[mouse]

27 pages and a month later and still no proof of Evolution.

[Wild Cobra]

27 pages and a month later and still no proof of Evolution.

No proof of creation either.

Tell me though, was God created, or did he evolve?

[Wild Cobra]

Just for the record, I do not believe the life on Earth evolved to where we are today. I believe in both evolution and creation, and believe a higher power manipulayed the DNA of species here.

[Phenomanul]

New information can be added by the duplication of gene sequences, or my retroviral insertion into the genome. We have concrete examples of each, and this becomes more readily apparent as we sequence more genomes.

I believe I stated this much on three occasions in this thread alone.

This tends to debunk the claim that no new material can be added by the process of mutation.

But... That's not the true definition of a mutation... in your examples 'new' genetic material and more importantly the code itself is pre-existing... recombinations of these code sequences into and out of genes are not mutations. IMO scientists who delude others into believing these pathways are the backbone of evolution are being dishonest to the cause. Evolution purports to have created all genetic information from scratch, down to the last codon of every gene (the holy grail of genetic proof for evolution)... recombinations from a pre-existing templates, hence, don't qualify (we have hoards of experiments that prove the latter).

BUT

Modern understanding of mutations is that, by and large, most mutations are very small and only end up effecting the expression of one gene. It has been shown that a majority of such mutations in mice tend to have little effect, but if the right gene is switched on/off at a critical time in the development of the embryo, or a certain protein is made in slightly larger proportions, this can have rather dramatic affects.

So now you've added criticality into the equation of when a mutation must occur. That makes the math even more unlikely.

Your underlying assumption, and the one you continually refuse to question is that such changes are so remote as to be virtually impossible.

In the case of beneficial point mutations or DNA translation errors that is most definitely the case...

The data we have regarding rates of mutation shows mutations to be fairly common events, making this a faulty assumption.

Only if you qualify "every change to genetic" code as a mutation... which is certainly not the case. That's a disingenuous basis and I've explained why...

If mutation rates are higher than you obviously assume, then is it fully within the realm of possibility that 4.6Bn years is quite enough time for such a process to create the “large volumes of genetic wealth”?

No

That's why the subject of origins deals such a critical blow to the evolutionary premise. All of that genetic code must be created from scratch for evolution to work at point zero. If however an original genetic template was created; 4.6Bn years would provide enough time for the code to recombine repeatedly and create the diversity we see today...

[Blake]

That is actually a distortion about what the modern understanding of mutation is.

Mutation is not strictly a degenerative process.

Either you are deliberately misrepresenting this, as I understand it, or you simply don't seem to understand the processes of mutation. I can't figure out which it is.

Since it's Phenomanul, I'm thinking it's both.

[Blake]

Ha ha...

Do those answeres sit right with you?

what 'answeres'?

in your general Sunday School classroom, they teach that God has always been and will always be. He was neither created nor evolved.

That's why I can correctly assume you never went to SS or you didn't pay attention if you did go.

[AussieFanKurt]

lolroflcopta @ creationism