http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8050/8...53bd2423_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,
New eyes for blind cave fish? and
Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information?
“No new species have been produced.
” This is not true—new 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 Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (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, it’s 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