Evolution falsifies God/s?

Fewer possible deleterious mutations in a fruit fly compared to a human.I don't follow your example of a bicycle and a 747. Neither are biological life forms capable of reproducing themselves. If they were, then an error in a bicycle could be weeded out (natural selection) far easier since it could only be a few possible parts that "failed". Plus, the bicycles would benefit from such a large population. The 747, on the other hand, would have millions of parts that could fail and a very small population for natural selection to work within.

Then you agree that no one can prove we evolved from a monkey, a fish, or a protocell? That's your "walking man" analogy, correct?You're wrong that no one claims he's walked all the way from the West Coast. That claim is made all the time with those ridiculous evolution charts.

Hox genes mean that a small gentic change can result in new "body plans" in exactly the way you asserted was impossible.What this has to do with "information" will depend on how you define "information" but whatever definition you use the falsity of your assertion remains.

If Hox genes "can result in new body plans" where's the evidence? if there are actual genes that can do this you shouldn't have to wait thousands or millions of years to see the result. But of course as usual this is just theory and assumption.

No. The article is about relatively small population size in eukaryotes meaning greater vulnerability to mildly deleterious genetic drift leading to the positive selection of more complex relationships in proteins in order to compensate for the damage.Here's the article: Here's the paper it's based on.No YEC can possibly agree with the hypothesis being put forward. The complex protein relationships being discussed are an essential part of complex animals like ourselves. It's far more common for creationists to argue that these are irreducibly complex than to link to papers describing how they could evolve. You're shooting yourself in the foot again, as you have been throughout the thread.There's a difference between liking an uphill battle and voluntarily running into brick walls.

Have you actually looked up hox genes and the associated experiments? Extra limbs, ribs further down the spine, additional wings, legs growing in place of antennae etc.Very "now".

You actually mean developing an eye or an ear, not just the (magical) ability to do so -- that ability (to modify the DNA) is already present in all life forms via mutations.Oh I know you think you are being clever, but it isn't coming out that way. I gave you two examples where there is actual fossil evidence of intermediate forms, one in the formation of the mammal ear from the reptile ear by gradual modification of the elements, and another in the formation of the tetrapod (that's four footed) form from fish elements.These (and eyes) don't just pop up fully formed in one generation, as you seem to mistakenly imply. Which is still a meaningless phrase of no importance to evolution or the study of evolution.We have the fossil evidence shows such transitions happened, so either "information" increased or it is irrelevant to evolution. Which is abiogenesis rather than evolution - according to science anyways. Boy is that a garbled mess. By mutations and selection over generations. Nope, you are misunderstanding. Would you like to try again? Depends on selection pressure. The modification to the reptile bones to form mammal ear bones occurred over millions of years. Was successful use of a new food source. This is similar to the mutations some humans have to process lactose as adults (see Are you a mutant? x man? Can you drink milk?). Because you don't understand (1) the point of the experiment or (2) the result? Curiously your opinion has negligible effect on reality. Example of what? Lobed finned fish being an earlier intermediate form?http://annmccartneyblog.com/2013/01/14/from-fish-to-tetrapodEnjoy.

No, of course I don't agree with that. You can tell that this is not something I agree with by the way that I have never said anything remotely like it. I would have been wrong if that was what I had said. But I did not say it, as you can see by reading what I wrote.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You seem not to understand natural selection.Again, I would point out that you don't need us for this, these are not abstruse and specialized questions. You need a book called something like Genetics For Beginners.Alternatively, you could have paid attention in high school.

Certainly. You can read about rapid increases in fitness by several different routes over less than 2,000 generations here: Rapid thermal adaptation (pdf)Really? When would you expect extinction to set in then? What was it in the mutations described in this paper(pdf) that "sounded" a lot like genetic entropy to you?One thing it does describe is apparently near neutral potentiating mutations laying the ground for subsequent mutations that face positive selection. There's also a significant addition of genetic material by duplications which are advantageous on arrival. There's also the creation of a new hybrid gene.

What is observed, as I have pointed out, is a clear and verifiable improvement in fitness. If you wish to denote the process that produced this increase by the bizarre phrase "genetic entropy", then feel free to do so. The rest of the world calls it "adaptation", but whatever. You may also call it "chromosomal electromagnetism" if you please. You can call it "a fish wearing a bowler hat" if that makes you happy. By all means throw words together in any daft and meaningless combination that gladdens your little heart. As I have observed before, the process is entirely unaffected by the words you use to describe it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I would like to see your source on this. Does the source give details on the differences in the genome between the first and the 40,000th generation? How different were they?

This is a very good post. Just wonderful. Truly, I am amazed at what informative things you've told us today
{Spam link deleted}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Process spam.

I really appreciate the kind of topics post here. Thanks for sharing us a great information that is actually helpful. Good day!
{Spam link deleted}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Process spam.

Definitely a great post. Hats off to you! The information that you have provided is very helpful.
http://www.spam.bolagila.com.spamEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Process spam.