mindspawn writes:
So going back to the original argument, an organism with two duplicate genes with better fitness when exposed to pesticides and with very few observed mutations in those two genes is absolutely consistent with both theories:
1) It is consistent with the theory of evolution that the duplication was recently created and increases fitness when exposed to pesticides.
2) It is consistent with the theory of creation that the duplicates were created alike, and the original population retained more fitness when exposed to pesticides rather than the subsequent mutated "gene deleted" population. And also consistent with a mutation rate of 100 per generation, at that rate not all gene's would experience continuously inherited mutations over a 6000 year time frame.
So, if you are stating that it is consistent with both ideas (which as Taq said anything is consistent with magic) then why should we add what could only be considered a needless entity, i.e.-God, into the equation. I see no reason to add God into the mix when evolution is enough of an answer, as you have just said. Especially considering the lack of evidence for any sort of God outside of the human imagination. Plus add in all of the other evidence that you would have to throw out from other fields, nuclear decay, all of cosmology, etc., and your solution requiring 6,000 years seems far more unlikely than the simple solution of a recent mutation increasing fitness, through the process of evolution.
...I mean, after all, you agreed the evidence is consistent with evolution as well.
The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. -Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. -Neil Degrasse Tyson
™ Version 4.2
(1)
