Mike,
mike the wiz writes:
Larger changes aren't shown to happen repeatabley. The fossils are the facts, not the theory.
As for 1+1 = 2, that is a lie if you think micro=macro, because natural selection, as you said - moves against mutation, and culls defective genes according to environment.
If you have a gene pool and you get an isolated population, the removal of information is negative. So you're going from 5, to 4, to 3, to 2.
So 5-1-1-1 doesn't = 8. It is a mistake in your thinking i'm afraid, because the facts only show a reduction of information. You still need what you try to hide, equivocate and fudge away. You still need morphological change. (physical appearance).
Untill you can SHOW ME those changes in real time, logically and technically, evolution is not proven.
Even the evolutionists have to agree with me on this, because they know logic.
Evolution can never be proven in the sense you are asking. It will not be possible to show you changes in real time leading to a major morphological change (I assume you mean a genuinely new feature and not a change in shape, which obviously can be seen in domestic dogs for example). If evolution is true, these events are very rare indeed.
Regarding your point about isolated populations - there is a reduction in gene diversity relative to a larger population when isolation occurs, but over time mutation does generate more diversity. Natural selection moves animals towards greater fitness - not necessarily eliminating all mutations. There is good evidence of this if you would like it.
Simulations have shown that a series of small changes can incrementally take a visual system through an evolutionary pathway from simple pigment cells / shadow detection through to something similar to a vertebrate eye, provided there is selective pressure for improved vision. Each individual step on the way increases fitness. There is no need to 'batch up' a whole series of changes before they have an effect. So logically in this case, evolution of the eye has been shown to be possible.
Evolutionists also believe that bacteria only reproduce to bacteria, cats to cats etc. There is never a point where monkey jumps to ape. Change is gradual.
There are many cases where mutation 'increases information'. A common mechanism is gene duplication followed by mutation. I'm told there are many papers demonstrating this.
Edited by Admin, : Add descent quoting. Rich, you might want to check out the help for dBCodes, click the link to the left of the message entry box.
™ Version 4.2
