Coyote writes:
What is the importance of "new genetic material" anyway. If there are new functions, what is the difference whether the genetic material is new or just changed.
If there are new functions then evolution works. The problem is how do you discern whether new functionality has been added.
That's easy. And that's not the question. The question is why so many creationists insist on "new genetic material" rather than "new functionality." It appears to me to be a strawman.
Consider a computer program with it's various methods. You can run the program without ever using one or more of the methods. If you have functions that were not originally programmed then you have new information and macroevolution.
If you have realisation of existing functions then it's just adapation, precoded.
Adaptation? Just adaptation? What do you think evolution is? Evolution is a lot of little adaptations that add up over time.
I think one problem is that creationists are looking for a bird to give birth to (or hatch) a reptile or something equally silly. I've seen them write that the individual who has the first example of a mutation would have no one to mate with. This is both silly and false, as the changes are gradual, not drastic as some creationists seem to expect.
The problem for evolutionists, is to show how code can be inserted into the genome. Code cannot be built piecewise, it has to be intelligently conceived and inserted as an entire new function.
Not likely.
Complete and utter nonsense. There is simply no scientific evidence of "intelligently conceived and inserted." This "intelligent" business is pure religion.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
