Yup, and the refutation is below. Since you lost the argument completely you are taking pieces from here and there, wasting everyone's time:
Gore3000 is grasping at straws with this statement. These mutants spontaneously evolved a new ability via random mutation. RWN-
Nope. Your example does not show:
1. greater complexity.
2. greater genetic information.
3. the duplication of and expression of a new gene.
4. better functioning under normal conditions.
In short it does not show anything necessary for evolution to be true. What it does show is adaptation to the environment. One last thing, it is even doubtful that this can be called a mutation. The specificity of the change, suggests (but does not prove) that it may have been due to deliberate adaptation by transposons. As I said at the start of this discussion 4 - 2 does not equal 6. You need additional expressed genes for evolution to be true and such has never been shown.
1311 posted on 7/24/02 5:56 AM Pacific by gore3000
Lenny, we had this SAME exact conversation a few weeks ago.
You were completely shot down. Was it that traumatic for you? No recollection at all?
Read it again and have it tattooed to your chest this time so you don’t forget it again.
The EbgA mutations were both novel AND conferred a major survival advantage. This is ALL evolution claims. You’re completely out of any wiggle room.