natural selection is wrong

Ah, but your arguments ARE dishonest in the way I pointed out. That you chose to run away from that observation certainly is your choice, though.Now, what REAL science do you have to offer, and what REAL evidence do you have for your claims?

quote:

---

In real life, mutations which involve changes large enough to conceivably lead to new kinds of animals all have names, such as Down's Syndrome, Tay-Sachs Disease, Cri-Du-Chat Syndrome etc. etc.

---

That is an outright FALSE claim. Yes, some mutations that cause HUMAN illnesses have "popular" names. That is by no means true for the rest of the biosphere. And yes, we have many times provided examples of such significant changes with numerous references. So far you have NOT disproven ANY of those, merely repeating already disproven claims. Remember what I said about inherent dishonesty in creationist arguments? This is one example of that.

quote:

---

Ever notice the women going door to door collecting money for the Mothers' March of Dimes? Ever notice that they're ALWAYS collecting money for research aimed at eliminating mutations, and not for research aimed at causing them? Think there might be a reason for that?

---

You think there is a reason why you don't know about the massive research into mutations?Funny, how you seem to think that ALL mutations are about human diseases!

quote:

---

Other than that, the amounts of time it would take to spread ANY kinds of mutations, "beneficial" or otherwise, around our planet sufficiently to create our present biosphere has been shown to be impossible, i.e. to involve trillions to quadrillions of years and not the 4 billion which is claimed or the million or so which is likely the reality of the situation:

---

Funny how that site is a mirror image. Care to provide something that can be read?
And interestingly enough, the author of that site now have the following disclaimer:"This page originally contained an article called "Why I Disbelieve Evolution". That article, and its related sub-articles, have stagnated, and no longer accurately reflect my current position. "Hmm, seems like your "evidence" is no longer accepted, even by the one who wrote it. That's PATHETIC, redwolf.

{quoteGerms do not interest me.[/quote]Which is not our fault. That you have no interest in mutations that disprove your claim is duly noted as just ever so more creationist dishonesty.

quote:

---

Give me a list of beneficial mutations amongst mammals or birds, and make the mutations which could plausibly lead to a new kind of animal.

---

What is a new "kind" of animal? Do you accept a new species as evidence? If so, I will gladly provide evidence of this. If you are merely interested in a beneficial mutation in mammals, I will gladly provide that as well.So let me know what you want to accept as evidence of you being flat-out wrong.

quote:

---

A new kind of animal would be one with new organs, new requirements for integration of the new organs with old ones, a new basic plan for survival, and all of the instincts and skills necessary for survival via the new plan.

---

All of those in one animal before it is a new kind? So you are basically saying that a new "kind" has to be somewhere around a new Phylum?Your argument is still a bit vague, so I am merely trying to clarify your claim so it even remotely fit into what we know about biology today. Is it possible for you to set us some form of dividing line as to what is a new kind, based on traditional classifications of organisms?

quote:

---

A new kind of creature with a new basic plan for existence might have some utterly new features,

---

Well, the nylon bacteria would fit, but then you said that you had "no interest in bugs," right? Guess you want to eliminate any evidence before it is presented. Well, whatever rocks your boat in such arguments.As for your assumptions about the dinosaur getting wings, they are just plain silly, but I don't think we want to bother with that; I doubt you would reply.

quote:

---

The difference between preservation of deleterious / neutral and advantageous is not signficant when most all advantageous mutations get wiped out also.

---

It is, when you notice that WHEN a mutation manages to be passed down, it will be preserved if it is beneficial. And coupled with that other FACT of mutations that you ignored, that the same mutations tend to happen over and over again, as the structure of the DNA and proteins have more and less stable regions, a beneficial mutation swill, sooner or later, be preserved.And no, if all mutations kept being preserved, then each individual would be a unique species, or just about, so that argument of yours simply doesn't work in what we observe in the world today.