I repeat a post from another thread where someone said they would get back to me but they didn't except for one question but then they didn't reply to my reply.
One thing about the origin of species development that is troubling to non evolution believers is all the hoaxes that the supposedly hard core "science" proponents put forth. Jonathan Wells wrote a very good book called "Icons of Evolution" about it, also he has a
shorter article called "Survival of the Fakest" in pdf form available. Many disproved evolution examples that turned out to be hoaxes like the pepper moth experiment are still being used in public schools and colleges today.
If evolution is supported by so many facts, why to they have to use so many hoaxes?
How many evolutionists believe dinosaurs were reptiles and how many believe they were birdlike and evolved into birds? Can they both be right?
If one side is right, doesn't that mean the other side is terribly wrong?
How could so many scientists be so wrong about so many fossils?
Why does the earliest fossil period have the most fossils? If evolution is true, would the earliest be the least?
Mutation never adds anything, it only takes away. Like, bacteria mutate and become more resistant and they call it evolution. But nothing was added. The bacterias genetic structure lost some parts. How is that evolution? .
These are some of the questions I have of evolutionists.
------------------------------
His answer to one question was:
What parts have the bacteria lost? Hasn't it gained the resistance to the antibiotic? What was added was slight variations in the DNA so that the antibiotics do not have the same effect on it. (He said he would get back to me on the other questions but never did.)
Then I answered:
Perhaps I was thinking more of chromosomes but my understanding is that no mutations make any big changes, for instance a bacteria cannot mutate into a plant. The changes take place within the dna setup. And in most mutation cases part of the genetic structure is removed. Antibodies fit themselves to known germs but if the germ mutates into an unknown structure from having some of it's structure removed the antibody can't connect and destroy the germ.
For instance in a communist country if a man speaks out against the government he is often killed, so if he got throat cancer and could no longer speak he has
gained resistance to communist killers.
That doesn't mean the mutation is necessarily the greatest or will help "evolve" him.
My answer guy must have gotten very busy becuase he never replied to that.
Does anyone have any answers besides "I'm science and you're not?"