Replies

Perhaps calling evolutionism science is our first problem.

Where has SCIENCE demonstrated by experiment that mutations produce good things for a creature or plant? All observed mutations reduce information and produce results for the organism that are detrimental.

Give an example of an observed mutation that has produced positive and additive results for an organism. I see none of this on any of the websites or in the literature. It is all assumed by Darwin and by those since he wrote his notions.

Hence evolution is not science but an ism and when it is attacked by others the evolutionist try to hide behind the cover of the S word SCIENCE. The worst kind of religion is one that claims its science. I am sick and tired of relgions of any stripe claiming they are science.

PROVE mutations cause positive things for organisms by producing a mutation that does so through natural, not man made tinkering. If you manipulate DNA to cause a positive mutation with your MIND working to do so that's not natural mutation but artificial.

Perhaps calling evolutionism science is our first problem. Where has SCIENCE demonstrated by experiment that mutations produce good things for a creature or plant? All observed mutations reduce information and produce results for the organism that are detrimental. Give an example of an observed mutation that has produced positive and additive results for an organism. I see none of this on any of the websites or in the literature. It is all assumed by Darwin and by those since he wrote his notions. Hence evolution is not science but an ism and when it is attacked by others the evolutionist try to hide behind the cover of the S word SCIENCE. The worst kind of religion is one that claims its science. I am sick and tired of relgions of any stripe claiming they are science. PROVE mutations cause positive things for organisms by producing a mutation that does so through natural, not man made tinkering. If you manipulate DNA to cause a positive mutation with your MIND working to do so that's not natural mutation but artificial.

MRSA

Give an example of an observed mutation that has produced positive and additive results for an organism. I see none of this on any of the websites or in the literature.

If I provide an example, will it make any difference to you? Be honest.

"Where has SCIENCE demonstrated by experiment that mutations produce good things for a creature or plant?"

Antibiotic immunity in bacteria. It has been done and is repeatedly done to test new antibiotics.

Your ideas that mutations have to positive for organisms are misplaced. Due to natural selection, only the positive ones are selected, but positive and negative are relative. This is what sickle cell anemia illustrates. Its positive in malarial areas, but negative in populations not exposed to malaria.

So, having shot down every one of your arguments, I would assume you will change your conclusions.

Didn't think so.;-)