: English Arguments to be avoided



03-10-2013, 10:32 PM
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8050/8082894312_4053bd2423_z.jpg
There are no beneficial mutations.
This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information in ways needed for microbes-to-man evolution to be feasible. Even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage they almost always cause loss of information. For examples of information loss being advantageous, see Beetle Bloopers: defects can be an advantage sometimes (http://creation.com/beetle-bloopers), New eyes for blind cave fish? (http://creation.com/new-eyes-for-blind-cave-fish) and Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information? (http://creation.com/is-antibiotic-resistance-really-due-to-increase-in-information)

No new species have been produced.
This is not truenew species have been observed to form.

Evolution is just a theory.
What people usually mean when they say this is Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically. Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word theory in this case is that scientists usually use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einsteins Theory of Relativity and Newtons Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the DebyeHckel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the DeryaginLandau/VerweyOverbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

There are no transitional forms.
Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, its better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.

We believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.
These terms, which focus on small v. large changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information (e.g., specifications for manufacturing nerves, muscle, bone, etc.), but all we observe is sorting and, overwhelmingly, loss of information. We are hardpressed to find examples of even micro increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite macro changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off. Interestingly, even high profile evolutionists (e.g. Mayr, Ayala) disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution
.
Comipled from here (http://creation.com/qa#bad_arguments)