[jennyp]

But what Darwin and nobody else can explain is how "fitter" creatures arise in the first place. Evolutionists employ pure assumption to theorize that random genetic mutations lead to "fitter" creatures, e.g., stronger, faster, smarter, with better sight and hearing. This part of their theory is scientifically absurd and has absolutely no empirical scientific evidence to back it up. In fact, ALL reputable research in this field supports the oppposite view that random genetic mutations do not produce "fitter" creatures but instead produce weaker, less-surivable mutant life forms. When I listen to half-educated evolutionists talk, I can't believe how easily they make massive assumptions with no scientific evidence to support their assumptions. It's truly amazing.

Gee, that's an even more hard-core statement than most creationists are willing to make! Most of "you guys" admit some beneficial mutations will occur, but that they always involve some mysterious, ill-defined "loss of information". Usually this is confidently stated alongside some equally ill-defined invocation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Then, when us "half-educated evolutionists" point out the phenomenon of gene duplication & the hijacking of these duplicated genes' functions, you guys plead that this hijacking of functionality has never been observed & it's all just a theory, etc. etc. It's a well-fingered script indeed... :-)

p.s. Meet Nebullis, our resident "fully educated evolutionist" whose job, I hear tell, is to raise flasks with colorful liquids up to the light while wearing a white labcoat.

[defenderSD]

OK, well then tell me please, what do you know about physical chemistry, the laws of thermodynamics, and the principles of entropy and information? And what do you think about the rest of my posts? People on FR tend to nit-pick other people's posts without addressing the major issues that are being raised. I think you may be losing sight of the big picture here and getting focused in on particular experiments that you may have read about. I encourage you to step back, educate yourself more in science, and look at evolution in more of a broad, conceptual way. The arguments against evolution are remarkably concise and powerful, once you fully understand them. By the way, I'm not a hyper-religous person and I'm not trying to convert people to creationism. But I'm continually amazed at the massive assumptions made by supporters of evolutionary theory, and I like to occasionally inject the opposing view into these debates.