http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp writes:
This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information.
...
If a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative than the proper book.
...
Therefore, it is free to mutate free of selection pressure (to get rid of it). However, such ‘neutral’ mutations are powerless to produce new genuine information.
This seems to be the main theme of their argument that no benefical mutations can occur. This is not factual because they never define what information is or why any of these examples do not increase information. If I duplicate each page of a book why is that not new information? What is this information that supposidly cannot be increased?
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/99_myth_is_dead.php writes:
As we have explained in one of our previous articles, "Darwinists Misrepresentations About the Human Genome Project", it is surely reasonable for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms and therefore genetic make-ups would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.
But in that case what kind of scientific explanation can be given for similar structures and genes in living things? The answer to that question was given before Darwin's theory of evolution came to dominate the world of science. Men of science such as Carl Linnaeus and Richard Owen, who first raised the question of similarity in living creatures, saw these structures as examples of "common design." In other words, similar organs or similar genes resemble each other not because they have evolved by chance from a common ancestor, but because they have been designed deliberately to perform a particular function.
Modern scientific discoveries show that the claim that similarities in living things are due to descent from a "common ancestor" is not valid, and that the only rational explanation for such similarities is "common design," i.e. Creation.
Paragraph 1 states that genetic similarities is not evidence for evolution. This is a claim not a fact. This claim is not proven true by the fact that humans and nematode worms supposidly have a high degree of genetic similarity.
Paragraph 2 states that the alternative is common design. This is not a fact proven by science and certainly not by the authority of a few "men of science".
Paragraph 3 is the conclusion and states a blatant opinion. Not a fact. The only alternative to disproving common descent is not common creator.
MaxAug writes:
As anyone can see they use information obtained in respected scientific periodicals.
I can quote respected scientific periodicals all day but if I draw non factual conclusions from them or distort them in some way then I have nothing. The authority of a scientific paper does not automatically give validity or authority to any statement that I might make.
MaxAug writes:
You know pretty well the evolution theory is the most important pillar of atheism, i wont even waste time arguing this.
So what? Even if you could some how show that evolution is pillar of a particular belief it does not mean that evolution comes from atheism. There are plenty of people of religions who accept evolution. That dosent associate them with atheism. I am pretty sure a lot of atheist believe in gravity too. What does that say about gravity?
The key here is evolution DOES NOT EQUAL atheism simply by the fact that we can find a single person who is both not atheist and also believes in evolution.
™ Version 4.2