Creation vs. Evolution

[Belegmacar]

In my opinion, it is irrelevant if God created the Earth in six literal days or if He created the Earth in six longer time periods. All that matters is whether God exists or not, and whether He created the Earth or not.

[Shireman D]

Bishop Usher did his calculations back in the 1800s - or was it even before that?[/QUOTE]
James Ussher (1581-1656) was Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland in the period of the English Civil war. His Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti, in which he explored Biblical chronology were published between 1650-54.

[joxy]

His Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti, in which he explored Biblical chronology were published between 1650-54.
As I noted in posting #246 above. :rolleyes: ;)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Was steadiness an essential feature of old Darwinian belief?
Is it an essential feature of current Darwinian belief?
Did life change suddenly?
If so, was suddenness a feature of all changes, or of a majority of them?

Is steadiness against suddenness a matter of importance in considering the validity of the evolutionary theory?
Certainly, "slow and steady" was the way in which Darwinism was explained by those scientists who held to the theory in its classical form. Of course, when we speak of "Darwinism", we are not speaking necessarily of Darwin's personal beliefs which, after all, were not that deep and well considered. He simply saw certain things - the same species on different islands exhibiting different characteristics - and derived conclusions from his obervations. Much of what became "Darwinism" was the result of other scientists extrapolating Darwin's original postulations far beyond what Darwin himself indicated.

Apparently - at least as far as today's "science" is concerned, many if not most changes were "sudden" including the arising of life. However, let us remember that "sudden" geologically and cosmically speaking may be considered relative. It may well be that blue-green algae actually did "arise suddenly" even in the ordinary understanding of that term. However, we do not know. Yet we do know that fossil remains of these creatures (and there had to be a large number of them to leave any fossil record at all) appear early in the planet's history - again with the understanding of "early" in such huge time periods. I wish I could remember at what time in the 24 hour "earth day" that the Origin series uses to determine such things, but I can say that man arises in the last 90 seconds or so of that "day" whereas life (I believe) arises almost 12 hours earlier. However, again I am testing my (not too good) memory in trying to remember the way the thing was explained. I am sure, however, that NOVA will show the series again and I say that it is well worth seeing for those who are interested in the subject.

Belegmacar: In my opinion, it is irrelevant if God created the Earth in six literal days or if He created the Earth in six longer time periods. All that matters is whether God exists or not, and whether He created the Earth or not.

Exactly my point. However, many people do get very exercised in the matter of the literal truth of Scripture. I for one do not see how six days in Genesis can mean six literal days when the sun does not appear until, I believe, day 3! But to my mind, the inability of some people to bear any contradiction of the Scriptural version of creation is no worse (or better) than those who are unable to admit the possibility of a Creator simply because the Scriptural version of creation is not "literal".

In my opinion, the same error is being committed by those on both sides of the issue! The first group demands that God must have created the Earth and everything on it (and outside it) in six 24 hour days and therefore all proofs that it in fact wasn't done that way are false and malicious. On the other hand, the second group insists that existing evidence providing proof of a creation sequence that differs from a literal understanding of Genesis means that all of Scripture is "false" and/or "mythical" and therefore there is no God! Neither point of view seems logical to me as both seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Finally, a literal understanding of Genesis is hardly necessary for the faithful. This is a proven fact since the early Christian Church never adopted a literal translation of the creation history provided by that Book of Scripture. On the other hand (again) the fact that modern science itself discounts the possibility of a spontaneous arising of life (DNA is just too complex), that also puts the "Darwin" folks out of the running with regard to an explantion of at least how life began. And that, of course, it the BIG question. How life "evolved" is hardly relevant if one continues to debate how it "began". Since it could not have begun "randomly" or "spontaneously" or "naturally", I fear that there has to be some consideration - however unwilling - of a Primary Cause whether or not that Primary Cause did what He did in six days or six hours or six eons.

[Aragorn21]

Plant evolution: I'll keep looking for a link, once I find one the discussion on it will continue.

I did; in that link. It answers all of these questions.Yes, I read through the link at least twice. But I failed to see it explain how the 5% of an eye is useful to an organism...5% of an eye won't help an organism see.

Mutations: Mutations do not add new genetic information so they cannot account for the diversity in life. Is that not correct?

ID: Ok, yes I'm sure you do know more about it than I... Doesn't matter, lol. :D

It is from simple to complex, isn't it? The Cambrian explosion is just like the colonization of land -- an example of sudden diversification after a new realm of niches is found (in this case, multicellularity). It is easily explained by evolution.No, it's not. It's like this:

if evolution happened the fossil record would look like this V you see the bottom of the V is very small, it gets larger towards the top, that's what the fossil record should look like. It however, looks more like a T simple until it gets to where it's REALLY complex, with all the life forms we know today and some that are extinct. No where is there a hint of gradualness.

[joxy]

5% of an eye, or any of the forms of distinguishing that light is present to some extent whether 5% or 95% that we see in more or less simple organisms still today, IS useful. It's not "seeing" in the sense that we see things, and in the sense that other creatures see even more efficiently than we do, but it's something, and for the organisms concerned it's well worth having.
And as to gradualness, Mrs M has emphasised the point I've made: when we're talking about vast stretches of time and space, so vast that I for one find them impossible to imagine, even to contemplate, gradualness is relative!

[Eriol]

Much of what became "Darwinism" was the result of other scientists extrapolating Darwin's original postulations far beyond what Darwin himself indicated.

Mrs. Maggott, once again you are wrong. You probably have a grudge against Darwin :D. Have you ever actually read the Origin of Species?

To say that Darwin's theory was not "well-considered" is very weird. Darwin spent twenty years before publishing his theory, just "considering" all aspects of it. It is probably one of the most "well-considered" theories ever. And as his letters show, he was much more acquainted with the consequences (particularly for the Evolution of Man) than his contemporaries.

No, to say that Darwin did not "consider well" the consequences of his theories is just wrong.

On the other hand (again) the fact that modern science itself discounts the possibility of a spontaneous arising of life (DNA is just too complex)

Warning -- fallacious use of statistics being detected here.

, that also puts the "Darwin" folks out of the running with regard to an explantion of at least how life began. And that, of course, it the BIG question.

Not to the Darwin folks. We, biologists, couldn't care less. You see that the folks who debate this are cosmologists, like Carl Sagan, Fred Hoyle, etc.

How life "evolved" is hardly relevant if one continues to debate how it "began". Since it could not have begun "randomly" or "spontaneously" or "naturally", I fear that there has to be some consideration - however unwilling - of a Primary Cause whether or not that Primary Cause did what He did in six days or six hours or six eons.

"It could not have begun naturally" is unwarranted by the data. No one knows. Ignorance doesn't speak either way. We don't have enough information to say anything about this.

Yes, I read through the link at least twice. But I failed to see it explain how the 5% of an eye is useful to an organism...5% of an eye won't help an organism see.

Oh yes, it will. From the link:

"The simulation therefore (...) concentrates on the evolution of eye shape and the lens; this is the problem that Darwin’s critics have often pointed to, because they think it requires the simultaneous adjustment of many intricately related parts."

"From the initial simple stage, Nilsson and Pelger allowed the shape of the model eye to change at random, in steps of no more than 1% change at a time: 1% is a small change, and fits in with the idea that adaptive evolution proceeds in small gradual stages."

"The model eye then evolved in the computer, with each new generation formed from the optically superior eyes in the previous generation; changes that made the optics worse were rejected, as selection would reject them in nature. The particular optical criterion used was visual acuity – the ability to resolve objects in space. The visual acuity of each eye in the simulation was calculated by the methods of optical physics. The eye is particularly well suited to this kind of study because optical qualities can readily be quantified: it is possible to show objectively that one model eye would have better acuity than another. "

More on the original link (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/Adaptive_explanation7.asp)

Mutations: Mutations do not add new genetic information so they cannot account for the diversity in life. Is that not correct?

Nope. Rather flagrantly incorrect, since of all the mechanisms which generate genetic diversity, mutation is the only one which actually generates new genetic information (instead of simply reshuffling pre-existent information).

Mutations are therefore the only (known to science) way to account for the diversity in life.

if evolution happened the fossil record would look like this V you see the bottom of the V is very small, it gets larger towards the top, that's what the fossil record should look like. It however, looks more like a T simple until it gets to where it's REALLY complex, with all the life forms we know today and some that are extinct. No where is there a hint of gradualness.

I don't understand your point. We have a V. Few, simple forms, followed by lots of complex forms. The diversity in life forms has a clear increasing trend, interrupted only by mass extinction events.

We have more species today than we had 30 million years ago, and 30 million years ago, they had more than there were at 100 million years ago, and so on.

What is your point? We have a V, not a T.

[Aragorn21]

Oh yes, it will. From the link:

"The simulation therefore (...) concentrates on the evolution of eye shape and the lens; this is the problem that Darwin’s critics have often pointed to, because they think it requires the simultaneous adjustment of many intricately related parts."

"From the initial simple stage, Nilsson and Pelger allowed the shape of the model eye to change at random, in steps of no more than 1% change at a time: 1% is a small change, and fits in with the idea that adaptive evolution proceeds in small gradual stages."

"The model eye then evolved in the computer, with each new generation formed from the optically superior eyes in the previous generation; changes that made the optics worse were rejected, as selection would reject them in nature. The particular optical criterion used was visual acuity – the ability to resolve objects in space. The visual acuity of each eye in the simulation was calculated by the methods of optical physics. The eye is particularly well suited to this kind of study because optical qualities can readily be quantified: it is possible to show objectively that one model eye would have better acuity than another. "

More on the original link I must be really dense or something, because that looks to me like they're explain how the eye could evolve gradually, but not explaining how each step of its evolution is useful.

Nope. Rather flagrantly incorrect, since of all the mechanisms which generate genetic diversity, mutation is the only one which actually generates new genetic information (instead of simply reshuffling pre-existent information).I've heard that mutations add new traits, but not new generic information. I've seen this on numberous websites. Could you show me one that proves otherwise?

I don't understand your point. We have a V. Few, simple forms, followed by lots of complex forms. The diversity in life forms has a clear increasing trend, interrupted only by mass extinction events.

We have more species today than we had 30 million years ago, and 30 million years ago, they had more than there were at 100 million years ago, and so on.

What is your point? We have a V, not a T. No, we do not have a V. V represents gradual, simple getting more and more complex. We have a T, little complexity followed by MAJOR complexity, nothing in between. That's what the fossil record shows.


btw, sorry for my long absense, I haven't had the time to come on here much.

[Eriol]

I must be really dense or something, because that looks to me like they're explain how the eye could evolve gradually, but not explaining how each step of its evolution is useful.

"optical qualities can readily be quantified: it is possible to show objectively that one model eye would have better acuity than another"

I've heard that mutations add new traits, but not new generic information. I've seen this on numberous websites. Could you show me one that proves otherwise?

Gosh. Anyone. It's in textbooks. Google for "Evolution mutation", pick a site, it will have that.

Your sites aren't too good, it seems. I didn't forget about the whooper about social insects being less related to each other than normal.

No, we do not have a V. V represents gradual, simple getting more and more complex. We have a T, little complexity followed by MAJOR complexity, nothing in between. That's what the fossil record shows.

No it isn't.

"Yes it is"

No it isn't.

:D

The graph number of species vs. time shows a very clear (and gradual) trend of increase in time, interrupted only by mass extinction events. A "v", therefore.

There are other criterions, for example morphologic diversity, in which the pattern is more like a handglass. Sudden diversification (the "Cambrian explosion"), then a sudden drop in the number of morphotypes, followed by exploration of the "morphospace" of each form. That is not a T, though.

I don't know of any account of that, or of any criterion, that makes the fossil record a T. The only objective criterion is number of species -- and that is a clear V. Morphological diversity can only work if we use the extremely artificial assumption that there was no diversity before multicellular organisms appeared (if we ignore protozoan morphologic diversity).

Anyone who believes that never looked in a microscope, with a drop of water from a lake.

EDIT: Two quick finds on google about mutation:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_4.htm

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutation_and_Evolution.html

[joxy]

....that looks to me like they're explain how the eye could evolve gradually, but not explaining how each step of its evolution is useful.
Each step would be useful in its own limited and specific way.
Some organism might find it useful to be able to sense which way is "up" - which way light is coming from.
Another might find it useful to be able to distinguish night from day.
"From little acorns great oak trees grow."
Now we can "see" inside an atom and beyond the galaxies, and it all started with that 5% of an eye - and much less.

[Aragorn21]

"optical qualities can readily be quantified: it is possible to show objectively that one model eye would have better acuity than another"Oh dear, am I stupid? How does that show that each step in the evolution of the eye is useful? :confused:

Mutations: I have done alot of googling on mutations. And I see "mutations are a change in genetic information" not "mutations add new genetic information"


"What is a Mutation?
A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene. Mutations in a gene's DNA sequence can alter the amino acid sequence of the protein encoded by the gene.
How does this happen? Like words in a sentence, the DNA sequence of each gene determines the amino acid sequence for the protein it encodes. The DNA sequence is interpreted in groups of three nucleotide bases, called codons. Each codon specifies a single amino acid in a protein." (http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/mutations/) No where do I see anything that says mutations add new genetic information, not even in the links you provided.


No it isn't.

"Yes it is"

No it isn't.
:D i was just thinking that exact same thing!

Fossil Record:

Abrupt appearance of animals. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist) Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record. It contains no proof for macroevolution of animals

Plants appear abruptly, too. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner: "... I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.

Animals unchanged. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. It is said there are many more living species of animals than there are types known only as fossils. If Evolution is true, one may wonder why the case is not just the reverse! Evolutionary history is supposed to be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man.

Sufficient fossils. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils. Although scientists will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals and plants, it is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already discovered (and the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication of which way the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little or no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism.

The fossil record does not provide evidence in support for Evolution. "Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)

Some organism might find it useful to be able to sense which way is "up" - which way light is coming from. Another might find it useful to be able to distinguish night from day.But would it be able to with only 1% of an eye?


I think this discussion is pretty much over. I don't think I'll be posting in this thread much, if at all anymore. I've been too busy with school to spend as much time as necessary researching, and I don't think I know enough to continue debating mr. Eriol. :D So thank you mr. joxy and mr. eriol, it has been fun, and I definately learned alot. See you around. :)

[Mrs. Maggott]

Much of the problem here is the absence of large amounts of data. As I have previously posted, we know very little of "the whole" when it comes to the past. Yes, we have some clear indication of the evolution of certain species - such as, for instance, the horse - but for the earliest stages of creation and on into fairly recent history - after the extinction of the dinosaur, for instance - we are like people attempting to determine an extremely difficult and intricate puzzle of thousands of pieces from a mere handful, many of whom don't even "fit together" so to speak. Ergo, many of the conclusions which scientists are so prepared to declare as unassailable fact, frequently find themselves disproved when the next round of discoveries is made!

For instance, if you look at the early sci-fi films, you see dinosaurs dragging their tails on the ground and moving slowly as do modern reptiles and amphibians. However, now we know that their long tails - especially among the bipeds - were used like a kangaroo's tail for balance and hence was carried in the air rather than being dragged on the ground. We also are pretty much certain that dinosaurs were warm blooded, unlike modern reptiles and amphibians. Yet all of this knowledge is of very recent origin although we have had dinosaur fossils since the late 1800s.

The history of the universe in general and the earth in particular is fascinating. But it is useless to demand loyalty to any present "theory" since tomorrow may provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary. One is far better served with an open mind that is thus able to see and accept evidence which conflicts with the present orthodoxy if one does not wed oneself to any particular "theory" exclusively.

Parenthetically, I wish the members to know I am speaking here of scientific facts regarding events that took place and not whether or not those events were ir were not guided by a Creator. In this alone is a fixed opinion acceptable always providing that one does not attempt place upon the Creator limitations determined by man!

[joxy]

But would it be able to with only 1% of an eye?
Plants don't have eyes at all; I think we can agree on that.
Plants are able to sense the electro-magnetic radiation of the sun, in the form of light, or in other forms, and can and do use that ability in order to orientate themselves in the most favourable position for obtaining the maximum amount of radiation possible in order to achieve the best possible rate of photo-synthesis, which is vital to its existence and to its procreation.
Similar abilities to sense light became specialised over those uinimaginable depths of time into the organs we know as eyes.
Now we see the universe in all its vastness, and all its minuteness.
Isn't that a magnificent part of Creation?!
And let me be an anti-filmFrodo, to you as an anti-filmSam: Don't go away, please!

[Eriol]

Oh dear, am I stupid? How does that show that each step in the evolution of the eye is useful? :confused:

If every step in the simulation is objectively better at visual acuity, then it is more useful. Once we assume that the purpose of the eye is visual acuity, that is ;).

No where do I see anything that says mutations add new genetic information, not even in the links you provided.

From the first link (the first sentences there!):

"The recombination of parental alleles creates new permutations of existing traits within a population's gene pool. However, mutations result in entirely new alleles."

From the second link (again, the first sentences):

"Mutations are the raw materials of evolution.

Evolution absolutely depends on mutations because this is the only way that new alleles are created. "

Fossil Record:

Abrupt appearance of animals. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist) Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record. It contains no proof for macroevolution of animals

Sorry, but it does. (We've found quite more fossils than Darwin ever knew about ;)). There are intermediate forms (for example) between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between amphibians and dinosaurs, between rats and bats...

When you speak of "basic kinds" of animals, though, you are speaking of phyla (Arthropoda, Annelida, Chordata, and the like). The "major designs". Yes, they appeared suddenly (in the Cambrian explosion), as soon as it was possible, due to multicellularity. This is a classic scenario of "niche exploration". Just like the fish which colonized the land experienced an explosion in the number of species and forms (what is called "adaptive radiation" ).

Plants appear abruptly, too. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner: "... I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.

Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961??

Sorry, but no fat lady singing here either. And the "abruptness" of the radiation is predicted by theory. As usual.

Animals unchanged. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. It is said there are many more living species of animals than there are types known only as fossils. If Evolution is true, one may wonder why the case is not just the reverse! Evolutionary history is supposed to be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man.

Watch out, for this quote establishes -- beyond all doubt -- that the graph species vs. time is V-shaped. It states what I have been saying for a long time, that there are more species nowadays than there were 50 million years ago, and more then than there were 150 million years ago, etc.

And, of course, evolutionary history is filled with temporary (since they are no longer around), intermediate stages of evolution.

I wonder at how people can state that and doubt it at the same time. The data in this paragraph (beginning at "it is said...") is pure Evolutionary theory; and the author thinks it is proof against it.

Weird.

Sufficient fossils. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils. Although scientists will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals and plants, it is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already discovered (and the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication of which way the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little or no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism.

Exactly. The millions of fossils already discovered provide a reliable indication of which way the evidence is going. Solidly, soundly in favor of Evolution. Ask the paleontologists. Ask the biologists. Ask the experts.

Don't look at sites who say that social insects are less related to each other than other creatures :p. If you want to learn about Tolkien, you go to a site about Tolkien. If you want to learn about biology, you go to a site about biology (not to one about Creationism).

The fossil record does not provide evidence in support for Evolution. "Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)

You know, this is called "arguing by statement" -- if you only state often enough that the fossil record does not support Evolution, perhaps people will believe it. The reasons offered (so far) by your sources to support that statement are laughable (sorry) -- they show an awful misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (by citing evidence that supports it, as if it bolstered the Creationist case), and often enough a misunderstanding of basic biology.

Evolution has a clear prediction of the fossil record: "If Evolution is correct, the fossil record should be like this". Lo and behold, it is exactly as predicted by modern evolutionary theory (don't go to Darwin for that, for his ideas of the fossil record were not perfect; he didn't know anything about heredity, and he also didn't know much about speciation too).

Evolution has also other clear instances of "predictive success". Evolution "predicted" that the continents were once in different positions, even when physicists (hard science :D!) laughed at biologists for proposing this. They said it was impossible. Later, it was shown otherwise. The same happened with the age of the Earth. Lord Kelvin (the greatest physicist of his time) scoffed at the notion of an earth older than 200,000 years, and not because of religious notions, because of accurate physical calculations. Later, it was shown otherwise (when radioactivity was discovered, as an "extra" source of energy for the Earth's heat).

Evolution has yet to be caught in a wrong prediction; it is one of the most successful theories of mankind. That's why we (biologists) are so bold when we say that "Evolution is a fact". It is. To doubt evolution, one has to doubt science in general. (This was something discussed in the old "Genesis" thread).

I think this discussion is pretty much over. I don't think I'll be posting in this thread much, if at all anymore. I've been too busy with school to spend as much time as necessary researching, and I don't think I know enough to continue debating mr. Eriol. :D So thank you mr. joxy and mr. eriol, it has been fun, and I definately learned alot. See you around. :)

Ok, see you around too.

[joxy]

OK then, let's bring this back to the top of the list that is still open.

[Aragorn21]

Whatever..might as well post. :D


No, I didn't say mutations didn't add new traits, of course they add new traits. What they don't add is new genetic information.


And am I slow of understanding? Because I honestly do not see how a group of cells (the beginning of the very complicated eye) could be useful to the organism, and every other % of the eye valuable there after... For something to be able to see it has to have 100% of an eye, and each part has to function correctly. Am I correct in thinking this?


hah, show me one intermediate fossil, in all my research I have yet to see a valid one...except for the some of the human evolution fossils...

[Eriol]

No, I didn't say mutations didn't add new traits, of course they add new traits. What they don't add is new genetic information.

No, it's the other way around. The definition of a mutation is "new genetic information". Often mutations do not result in new traits (neutral mutations).

A mutation can't help but adding new genetic information.

And am I slow of understanding? Because I honestly do not see how a group of cells (the beginning of the very complicated eye) could be useful to the organism, and every other % of the eye valuable there after... For something to be able to see it has to have 100% of an eye, and each part has to function correctly. Am I correct in thinking this?

No, you are not correct. Read the link again. Each stage has a measurable visual acuity; the first stage can distinguish only between light and darkness, but that is enough for many organisms.

hah, show me one intermediate fossil, in all my research I have yet to see a valid one...except for the some of the human evolution fossils...

I just found this. So far I was just quoting from memory (reptile-mammal transition, whale ancestors, etc.), but now there is a neat list:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[Aragorn21]

"Mutation is a change in the hereditary material of an organism's cells. By altering this material, a mutation changes certain traits." ~ World Book Encyclopedia

"2. a change within a gene or chromosome of animals or plants resulting in a new feature or character that appears suddenly and can be inherited." ~ World Book Dictionary



About the fossils. Yes, I have seen that before, I've read through almost all of that FAQ. And the first thing I thought when I saw that was, "why are these not on any other site?" (i have looked) and "why are no there no pictures or links to support any of these?" Perhaps you could answer that for me?

[Eriol]

No, I didn't say mutations didn't add new traits, of course they add new traits. What they don't add is new genetic information.

"Mutation is a change in the hereditary material of an organism's cells.

"2. a change within a gene or chromosome of animals or plants "

How come "a change within a gene/chromosome/genetic material" does not add new genetic information?

Your dictionaries are wrong (or at least misleading if they don't say what I'm about to say). They are using the breeder's definition of mutation; I, and evolutionary theory in general, use the genetic definition. More than half of the mutations take place in parts of the genome which do not express themselves, and are therefore neutral.

About the fossils. Yes, I have seen that before, I've read through almost all of that FAQ. And the first thing I thought when I saw that was, "why are these not on any other site?" (i have looked) and "why are no there no pictures or links to support any of these?" Perhaps you could answer that for me?

No, I can't. I don't know the webmaster of that site, or the author of that piece.

Though I have no idea of what does this have to do with the matter.

But you didn't look hard enough anyway. A quick google retrieved:

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm (by the same author, but not so detailed)

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Transitional_fossils (Wikipedia)

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/5.html

http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm (complete with a mention of living transitional forms).

Yep, you didn't look hard enough.