Quote:
Originally Posted by leewong
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
"Natural Selection has always been about survival of the fittest."
The fittest for the environment you numbskull. That can mean smaller. That can mean less hairy. That can mean just about anything. If the mutation is beneficial for surviving the environment the organism lives and reproduces.
|
Variations within species. Not a change of kinds. Not macro-evolution. Not the intelligent creation of structured and legible genetic code that works in complete harmony with existing code.
Quote:
"So now your magical force for Evolution lies are reproductive organs?"
Where are you getting this? Sexual organs did not spring out of thin air and arent the only way of reproducing. If you are curious about how sex organs evolved you can easily google it.
|
/boggle
You're the one who claimed breeding = prove of macro evolution. These terms such as macro and micro really don't fit anyways. It would really push the discussion along if you're tiny brain could understand the difference between the two and their relationship to Universal Laws but alas ....
Quote:
"There isn't a single example that can be given of spontaneous new genetic information and data being written to the genome from pure randomness and Nothing. "
Except it does and it has been observed in a lab. I sited the papers but you wont even acknowledge them. I am about done with you.
|
Bacteria that is still bacteria. It's not my problem you aren't grasping the points i'm making because you aren't very bright. You're googling a bunch of nonsense that isn't addressing the real points being made. That is not my problem. That is your problem.
Quote:
"A mutation is a random chaotic and destructive force. Not a creative force."
FFS, I have corrected you on this how many times now? I am done. Welcome to /ignore because you are being completely unreasonable and repeating the same nonsense while ignoring every correction and piece of data thrown at you.
|
Even the most prominent Evolutionists acknowledge mutations are not a creative force. Go ahead and ignore me. Take your ball and go home because you simply don't have a proper understanding of the subject. Mutations are random. They wouldn't create ordered and structure (and elegant design) within animals. For example eyes/nose/mouth on a face in perfect symmetrical structure equaling the golden ratio of 1.618. A precise mathematical calculation not only seen on the face, but everywhere in the entire Universe.
Show me ONE example of a mutation creating an entirely new, never before seen type/kind of animal upon this planet or anywhere else.
Just one