Increases in Genetic Information

Given your attitude on the other thread, I should like to ask: what point is there in talking to you? You won't take what we say on trust (which is fair enough). But when referred to scientific studies you declare them over your head. And when told that you could study the issue until you thoroughly understood it, you declare that you "don't have that kind of time". And lacking the knowledge that would come from such study, you feel free to reject any fact that contradicts your pre-determined religious beliefs.Which would make trying to educate you on these matters like pouring water into a sieve. You have talked yourself into a position where you can completely ignore any information you don't like. In answering your questions, we would be supplying you with a whole lot of information you wouldn't like, all of which you would ignore --- which would seem to make our efforts pointless.The only thing that seems more pointless is the way you ask questions to which you don't actually want answers.

But this is, of course, not what you were actually objecting to, nor was it the objection you made.

No, that's something you made up. Or rather, something that someone else made up for you, and that you've learned to recite without ever wondering whether it was actually true. It's a sign that it's correct. Whether that's "the basic argument of Creationism" depends on which creationist you ask. For example, AnswersInGenesis have "No new species have been produced" in their list of "Arguments that should never be used". And creation.com says: "New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model."

The "true" definition? This would be different to the one used by the creationists I've cited?Here's another one. According to the CreationWiki: When you've figured out what you want the "true" definition to be, maybe you could set your fellow-creationists straight. Sure.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What a lot of stuff you've made up. Well, whoops, then.

And if your argument hadn't been based on made-up stuff, you'd have a point.

It doesn't. So you couldn't even find one? Not one?

Well, we can estimate the number to be small, on the following grounds: we know that creationists would love to catch real scientists making a mistake. And we know how intelligent creationists are, how much scientific research they do, how intimately familiar they are with the scientific literature. And there are, of course, a heck of a lot of creationists, more, indeed, than would actually seem necessary. And yet there is not one single verified instance of it happening.This suggests that the errors made by scientists are exceedingly rare --- or, of course, that the second of my premises was false and that creationists are actually lazy ignorant halfwits. But how likely is that?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You followed someone else's lie in reciting it. The fact that that's not a fact kinda undermines that "fact".Have you learned nothing from being suckered by the Piltdown Man nonsense you recited? Like a little humility?

This issue is precisely that you didn't say anything about them. It's a fairly important thing to leave out.A: What's two plus two?B: Three. Or maybe five. Or seventeen.A: How about four?B: Who said anything about four here?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, lets get this right, he alleges that the real fossils failed to fit display cases which were based on the casts. Apparently he inhabits some parallel universe in which museums manufacture form-fitting display cases for fossils, and a millimeter or so either way prevents them from fitting them in the cases.

But that's not a misuse, that's the use, that's why "those in the professional field" actually use it that way. It's any change in DNA, whatever the cause, whatever the outcome.You cannot redefine the word "mutation" to mean "those mutations the existence of which Jbr would like to deny", because you don't have powers like that over the English language. Then what you think is wrong.

You should wait until you know what the theory of evolution is before you start lecturing people on it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, no. Because you have to find out if it has intent, i.e. an intelligent source, as a pre-condition for knowing if it was specified.