VadeRetro: "The history of life on Earth and the mechanisms of biology do not depend upon whether somebody's writings can be subjected to Twist and Shout Quote ScienceTM."
Asolutely, which is why I previously posted the items below.
Can you explain why dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection - (which removes DNA information but does not add new information), wouldn't be critical flaws in the theory of macroevolution (Darwinianism) through gradual change, or do you believe they are?
The theory of biological evolution maintains that living things (plants, animals, humans, etc.) have descended with modifiction from shared common ancestors.
[1.] Macroevolution (Darwinianism) refers to large-scale changes - where one species transforms into another completely different species.
For example, birds are said to have evolved from dinosaurs.
This process would require the addition of new information to the genetic code. [DNA]
[NOTE: It is IMPOSSIBLE for "new information" to be naturally added to DNA, so that should end it right there for rational people who don't have an agenda.]
[1.-a] Gradualism refers to the theory that macroevolution proceeds through the slow and basically constant accumulation of many small changes in order to effect large changes. This theory predicts that the fossil record would provide abundant evidence of intermediary life forms as one species is progressively transformed into another.]
[2.] Microevolution refers to changes in the gene expressions of a given type of organism but does not produce a completely different species. This is perfectly normal and natural and is indeed what occurs.
For example, through selective breeding, dogs ranging from Great Danes to Chihuahuas have been produced from wolves. That process doesn't require new information because the changes are a function of the genetic makeup [DNA] already present in the gene pool of the species. [Note: No "new information" in the DNA is needed].
The general public seems blithely unaware that no transitions from one species to another [known as macroevolution / Darwinianism) exist, even though it is common knowledge among paleontologists. That's why novel theories ---[ involving Archaeopteryx (false links between reptiles and birds), pro-avises (pure figment of someone's imagination;science fiction), and punctuated equilibrium (a new species appears all at once fully formed aka the theory of the "hopeful monster") ]--- are constantly "evolving".
They are not critical flaws in anything but your understanding. If you don't know anything about evolution, how do you know it's wrong? Let's just zoom in on part of that.
natural selection - (which removes DNA information but does not add new information)
This supposed objection amounts to saying that natural selection--a process of competition--is not variation. (Specifically, if you want increases of information, "mutation.") While it is *true* that selection is not mutation, it is not a *logical objection* that selection is not mutation. We have mutation for that.
First, you have to want to learn. Then you can learn. Then you can make sense.
[NOTE: It is IMPOSSIBLE for "new information" to be naturally added to DNA, so that should end it right there for rational people who don't have an agenda.]
Source?
[1.-a] Gradualism refers to the theory that macroevolution proceeds through the slow and basically constant accumulation of many small changes in order to effect large changes. This theory predicts that the fossil record would provide abundant evidence of intermediary life forms as one species is progressively transformed into another.]
A Sampling of Known Vertebrate Transitionals as of About 1997.
[2.] Microevolution refers to changes in the gene expressions of a given type of organism but does not produce a completely different species. This is perfectly normal and natural and is indeed what occurs.
That's very nice. Now identify a limit to how far initially identical populations can diverge under such a process. Please be the first creationist ever to understand the question and actually point out a mechanism which would stop divergence before it became something that looked macro. If you won't do that, at least identify what the major created kinds are.
The general public seems blithely unaware that no transitions from one species to another [known as macroevolution / Darwinianism) exist, even though it is common knowledge among paleontologists.
Maybe the general public is actually ahead of you on something.