[Geritol]

You are correct, this is natural selection. It is the weeding out and reduction of genetic variation when the dark variations are all gone, if that ever actually occurs. This is not evolution. Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information. We see differences in the genetics between the dark and light forms. We see different ways to do this in different species. This is not evidence of the creation of new genetic material for the different colors in modern times. Nor is it proof that new genetic information has not been created/manufactured/mutated into being in modern times. The existance of different color forms simply has nothing to do with proving or disproving evolution OR creation. Natural selection has to do with the removal of genetic material from local gene pools, and from the whole planet under extreme conditions, but can not be used to prove creation of genetic coding.

[chichipow]

So... natural selection is accepted by non believers of evolution, but mutation is not - because there are no instances of the adding of information, just the loss of it?

[jennyp]

This is not evolution. Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information. We see differences in the genetics between the dark and light forms. We see different ways to do this in different species. This is not evidence of the creation of new genetic material for the different colors in modern times.

Stop & think: You're implying that Noah had to put a pair of sandy pocket rocket, er, rock pocket mice and a pair of dark rock-pocky mice onto the Ark? Because if mutations don't happen that's the only way you could have both sandy and dark pock rockets today. The study showed that the differences between the sandies & the darks were indeed because of differences in their genes.

But you have to get current on the apologetics. As you can see here, even Answers in Genesis, the predominant YEC organization, accepts speciation by natural means. In fact, they accept much more rapid speciation than mainstream science says is possible! This is because they have to get from a limited number of animals on the Ark to the millions of species we see today, in only 4000 years. So their apologetic conundrum forces them to believe in speciation that's way too fast!

(You do have the "no increase of information" dogma down correctly, though.)

[ccmay]

Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information.

That's no silver bullet against the existence of evolution, as such creation happens all the time. Bacterial genetic exchange occurs via a number of mechanisms and results in DNA sequences that have never before existed.

Hence your implied proposition that "evolution is false because there is no way new genetic material can be created" is disproven by example. Game, set, match for evolution.

Go back to your bible thumping and quit trying to play scientist. Some things are ouside the province of science, and some are outside the province of religion, at least in the sense that it can be comprehended by humans.

-ccm

[exDemMom]

Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information.

Every time a C/G base pair mutates into an A/T base pair, I would say new genetic information is created. DNA is a highly mutable substance; annoying for a molecular biologist trying to engineering new DNA molecules, but very consistent with the whole evolution thing.

[cookcounty]

"You are correct, this is natural selection. It is the weeding out and reduction of genetic variation when the dark variations are all gone, if that ever actually occurs. This is not evolution. Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information. We see differences in the genetics between the dark and light forms. We see different ways to do this in different species. This is not evidence of the creation of new genetic material for the different colors in modern times. Nor is it proof that new genetic information has not been created/manufactured/mutated into being in modern times. The existance of different color forms simply has nothing to do with proving or disproving evolution OR creation. Natural selection has to do with the removal of genetic material from local gene pools, and from the whole planet under extreme conditions, but can not be used to prove creation of genetic coding."

Exactly. Or, almost exactly. That last "cannot" is perhaps a bit of irrational exuberance, though. While the normal (ab)use of natural selection does not logically lead to evolution, it's too strong to say this "cannot" occur.