- Nov 2, 2002
- Reaction score
Oh dear, am I stupid? How does that show that each step in the evolution of the eye is useful?"optical qualities can readily be quantified: it is possible to show objectively that one model eye would have better acuity than another"
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.
i was just thinking that exact same thing!No it isn't.
"Yes it is"
No it isn't.
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)
But would it be able to with only 1% of an eye?joxy said: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.
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. So thank you mr. joxy and mr. eriol, it has been fun, and I definately learned alot. See you around.