Replies

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

First, I do not hear any bibles being thumped or otherwise abused. I do apologize for being rather unclear in some of my statements.

Natural selection is not proof of evolution. Natural selection is more like the weeding out of non-viable forms after the fact of speciation or mutation, not the mechanism for creation of new genetic codes. Evolution requires some other mechanism to create the new codes before they are sent to alpha and beta testing via natural selection. I have a hard time believing that random mutations over time can account for all of the codes we see today, but that is not my point here.

I did not say that there is no evidence of new genetic sequences being generated in modern times. Only an idiot would argue that mutations do not occur or that none of them actually survive and thrive. I would just as soon argue that fish do not swim. Of course speciation occurs. But is it actual evidence of evolution? And specifically does this article have anything to do with new code being generated?

The article only pointed out that there were different forms, not when the forms diverged, nor even if either of these 2 different color variant genes was not part of that species' original genetic diversity. It might be brand spanking new last Thursday, but there is no proof presented either way that I see. jennyp, how do you know that Noah did not have one dark and one light mouse? I would not be surprised if they are still the same species with a recessive and dominant gene, but the article does not adress this that I see. My point is just that the existence of 2 color forms of this or any animal is not proof of or evidence for evolution. It is not even proof of the creation of new genetic material unless we can show the origin date of that specific code change because otherwise we can not prove that it did not already exist at least somewhere.

Evolution requires the generation of code for massively complex and intertwined systems. Natural selection just explains how the also-rans are wiped out. I have not proven a thing for or against evolution in any of my posts on this thread. I guess I was just hoping for an outbreak of logic or common sense. Instead I seem to be reading people arguing that a mechanism that works to diminish genetic diversity (natural selection) is proof of a system that perpetually creates new genetic code (evolution) and just thought that that was silly.

Natural selection would be a natural result of evolution. It would be an obvious effect. But the existence of natural selection can not be used as an arguement for or a proof of evolution.