Hey 4Pillars,
It is my understanding that just cutting and pasting from other websites is against forum rules. But more important than that is thievery and bad scholarship, some creos are really familiar with here and on other sites. Remember 'Dogs breeding dogs?' an article on AiG by Don Batten? You should since you outright stole at least three paragraphs from that and presented them as your own. Here is a section from that essay:
Don Batten writes:
New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus, but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new genetic information! For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila, the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new 'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one chromosome ” technically called a 'chromosome translocation'
To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins; a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations ” they degrade information.
Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful”it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.'
I am remembering your post where you claim http://
EvC Forum: Bible accepts evolution -->
EvC Forum: Bible accepts evolution:
4pillars writes:
New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus, but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new genetic information! For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila, the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new 'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one chromosome ” technically called a 'chromosome translocation'
Is the similarity a coincidence? What about this one http://
EvC Forum: Bible accepts evolution -->
EvC Forum: Bible accepts evolution:
4pillars writes:
To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins; a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations ” they degrade information.
Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful”it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.' (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1977, p. 28.) (Source)
I am a college professor and would fail you without qualm for that kind of academic dishonesty. Apparently lying for Jesus is okay. Again same as usual for you guys. For a response I want you to tell me about the book "Implications about evolution" Since you cited it I assume you have it? Remember message http://
EvC Forum: Bible accepts evolution -->
EvC Forum: Bible accepts evolution ?
I happen to have that ref as well so feel free to discuss it with me unless you have again just C&P'd from another creo lying webpage.