The protein deck is not reshuffled from scratch at each shuffle. Beneficial iterations are saved and built upon.
You, of course, know this. You have probably heard it a hundred times before. You know the right answer yet you continue to disingenuously to keep repeating your false proposition. Why?
You know exactly why he does it. So do I. So does everyone else who watches him in action. Likewise for anyone who watched the antics of the anti-evolution squad as a whole.
They are not interested in accuracy, facts, or honesty.
The following is from a post by "dwise1" at the evcforums discussion site. (Follow the link to read his whole post: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/Threads.cgi?action=tmi&f=12&t=553):
I didn't really realize that they're only concerned with convincing people until a discussion long ago in another forum. A creationist tried to use the sea-salt claim and we explained to him fully why it's wrong. The funny thing, though, was that, even though he was a strict YEC who believed that the earth could be no older than 10,000 years, here he was arguing that the earth was several millions of years old. I pointed that contradiction out to him and it didn't bother him a bit. He was perfectly happy with an earth that was several millions of years old, "just so long as it's not BILLIONS of years old like science says!".From my 30+ years of watching these people in action, this guy has it exactly right. The anti-evolutionists are all about undermining science itself, as well as public confidence in it. They are indeed, in every sense of the term, anti-science.That's when I finally got it! They're not trying to prove creation, but rather they just want to prove science to be wrong. About anything. That's why they'll even make claims that have absolutely nothing to do with evolution or the age of the earth (eg, to role of refrigerants in depleting the ozone layer); from a strict creation/evolution perspective, that just doesn't make any sense at all, but from the perspective of proving science to be wrong it does make sense. And they don't even have to actually prove science wrong, just so long as they can cast enough doubt.
Why do that? Well, if science is seen as threatening your faith, then destroy science. OK, not all of science; even the staunchest creationist loves his flush toilet too much. Just disable the parts that you think are a threat. And if you can't do that, then poke holes somewhere else just so you can reach the conclusion that those threatening parts could also be wrong, thus allowing you to pick and choose those parts of science that you want to accept, just as you do with the Bible.
I'll bet each and every one of them has benefited or knows someone who has benefited from the results of evolutionary science.
“From my 30+ years of watching these people in action, this guy has it exactly right. The anti-evolutionists are all about undermining science itself, as well as public confidence in it. They are indeed, in every sense of the term, anti-science.” [excerpt]Only if you define ‘science’ as ‘that unobservable process whereby which all life is asserted to have in an unobserved timespan, originated from an alleged first blob of living jelly for which there is no known source, and whose actual existence is scientifically unconfirmable.’