Um, what does this even mean? I can't parse this sentence in a way that becomes coherent. You seem to a) think that "Darwinism" is a meaningful term and that b) it is distinct from "evolution." This leaves me slightly confused. Although given the later material in your post it does provide a nice example to support the contention of many posters here that "Darwinism" as a term is used primarily by creationists. Incidentally, science doesn't care at all about "proof." Nothing in science is every proven. Proof is for alcohol and mathematicians.
Ok, you certainly are a self prescribed smart guy. Congrats on your self esteem.
Proof - Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something.
I'm still waiting for your proof... looks like I'll have to wait quite long period (hopefully not millions of years) for your proof while you debate my grammar and meaning of words.
First, I don't think you mean "compel" but rather "challenge" or "request." Second, I think don't mean "information to a species" but rather information to a specific genome.
Ok, thanks for making my point above. You knew what I meant, yet you waste my time explaining all this. Thanks buddy!
Well we're in luck because we have lots of those also. For example, we have bacteria which have evolved to be able to eat nylon. And that's one of many examples.
Oh, it's nice that you believe the things that are spoon fed into your brain. There are plenty of reasons that example is not a case of evolution... Nylon Eating Bacteria Explained I'm still waiting for a solid example... since you claim to have lots of examples, can you please find a better one?
But not having a complete list of every single mutation is not an argument against evolution.
I don't want a list of every single mutation... all I want is one example mutation that fits your theory. Just one valid mutation that creates something new that didn't already exist in the genetic makeup of the previous organism.
Wait, what? I thought there were no mutations adding information. Please make up your mind. Do mutations not work at all or not work within species? And what do you mean by "work" anyhow?
Mutations are all around us. In fact, some mutations are even good mutations (as they can get rid of bad information). My claim was that mutations have never added additional information, and they don't... they only re-order information, or more often than not, cause a loss of information. And never could they cause a change from one "kind" to another. They can go so far as to make part of one species not able to breed with other members of the same species due to the loss of information necessary for breeding. For example, one study gave evidence that sockeye salmon introduced into Lake Washington, USA, between 1937 and 1945 had split into two reproductively isolated populations (i.e., two separate species) in fewer than 13 generations (a maximum of 56 years). But they did not grow legs, nor grow feathers, or any sort of such thing...they don't have the information in their genes to do so. It just wont happen...ever.
Ok, this is simply false. Go read Origin of Species. It has that title for a reason. Seriously, go read the book. Second, even if he had never talked about speciation it would be irrelevant to whether or not it happens. Biology is not a religion which worships Darwin. He got quite a bit wrong (for example, he really didn't understand genetics or the possibility of something like neutral drift). That's ok. Science isn't tied down to the details of what Darwin wrote.
Ok, I'm not sure you have read the book. I will admit that I haven't read the book... but please, feel free to quote me some of the parts that talk about the Origin of Species (minus the title). BTW - the full title reads: "The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Strugle For Life." Natural selection just causes the better fit part of a population to survive and the others to die off... the better fit breed and keep those better fit genes. Where do you see it causing a ape to change into a man? It can't, because an ape doesn't have the genetic information to build a man.
Incidentally, you seem to be trying to saying that speciation does not occur? Is that correct? That's particularly interesting because the evidence for speciation is so overwhelming that even many young earth creationists accept it. In fact, the website you link to, actually lists that as an argument that you should not use since it is so discredited. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use .
Ahhh... so my ignorance of the word Species has become a problem... but thanks for informing me of that.
What you are quoting from answersingenesis.org is this -
"This is not true - new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the "kind", and involves no new genetic information."
Still proves my point... no new genetic information, and the speciation is only within a "kind".
And at minimum you will be better informed the next time you need to argue for creationism.
Thanks! I appreciate it. I do need a refresher course on what Biology is teaching kids these days. Much appreciated indeed. I look forward to your reply. Feel free to email me at tvharddrive{at]gmail[dot}com if you'd rather reply outside this message board.
