The Truth About Evolution and Religion

That's something of a non sequitur.I notice that like all creationists you have failed to explain how to quantify complexity. However, there are a couple of ways to show that you're wrong even if you can't be bothered to attach meaning to the terms you're using.Here's one thing you might like to consider. We can see mutations that change any base to any other base, that increase and decrease the length of a strand of DNA, and that cause the fission and fusion of chromosomes. There are others, but these are sufficient to prove the following:There is a sequence of mutations (indeed, an infinite number of such sequences) which will get you from any genome to any other.This is trivially true. So, for example, there is a sequence (indeed, an infinite number of sequences) of mutations which will get you from a fish to a frog, or from a dinosaur to a bird, or from a monkey to a man.I cannot say whether you would count that as an "increase in complexity" because you have not said what you mean by that phrase. But it's certainly sufficient for evolution. If the new variant is favored by natural selection then the old variant is obviously not "equally important". Too many mutations which impair function render the organism non-functional. And therefore are weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection. Biologists seem quite happy with what they've got. But when scientists look at genomes, what they see looks like the result of common ancestry rather than modular assembly.This is a large subject, so perhaps it deserves a thread of its own.

That's not so much a well-known fact as something you made up.Look at all the advances that have been made in science over the past century or so, were old ideas were overturned. Relativity, quantum theory, the splitting of the atom, radioactive decay ... all flying in the face of hundreds of years of conventional wisdom. All published first in peer-reviewed journals.Set against that, I can't think of a single scientific advance that began as a piece of vanity publishing. What on earth do you have in mind? Please point out the fakery. What do the developmental stages really look like? Thank you. Paleontologist disagree with you, 'cos of all those intermediate forms they've found. The genetic evidence is also rather compelling.So do you have any actual counter-argument? Only I'm not inclined to take it on your say-so alone. But this is something else you made up.We can and do watch the evolution of antibiotic resistance in the laboratory starting from a non-resistant population.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.