Replies

Thanks for the links. I read the intro to the most recent link but they're asking $30 to download the entire piece. The next recent link is 7 pages so I'll read that tomorrow when my head is more clear. The last link is pretty short, about the same size as the intro to the first link. It's definitely not my field of expertise but I can understand most of it.

In what way do you think the information at the above links help your position, where your position is the context of post #1166:

RWN: Yes, except you leave out how the organisms with the fittest genes survive. The "best" genes get through the filter.
G3K: As with your friend, you do not address the point made by me and in no way try to refute it. You just keep repeating the evolutionist mantra which I refuted in my post:
G3K: even if such a struggle were occurring, destruction of organisms and their genetic material, is not and cannot be the source of new genetic material which is what evolutionists moronically state. No 4 -2 does not equal 6. 4 -2 = 2 and you do not get new traits by destroying traits which are in the genetic pool of a species. Never.
G3K: No matter how you slice it you cannot get addition by subtraction, which is the moronic statement which evolutionists keep making. You need new genetic material for evolution to be true, not destruction of it. It is interesting that the examples given by evolutionists as proof of evolution always involve destruction of genetic material. You cannot get from a bacteria to a human without new genetic material.

In what way do you think the information at the above links help your position, where your position is the context of post #1166:-you

You need new genetic material for evolution to be true, not destruction of it.-G3K

I just showed you how new genetic material can arise. Natural selection now takes over (chooses from both preexisting alelles AND new genetic information).