Joined: Feb. 2006
AntiFact Dave is also refusing to see the huge contradiction in his nonsense about mutations.
It is known that mutation occurs. Dave has acknowleged this.
It is known that a mutation which occurs can suffer a subsequent mutation *which reverses the original mutation*. Dave cannot avoid this fact; it is irrefutable in theory and practice.
Dave nonetheless wants to insist that that the gene after the second mutation, when it is identical to the gene prior to the first mutation, *has less information and has degenerated from the gene with which it is identical*. He seems to want to take the additional step of insisting that the gene after the second mutation is *more different* from the original (with which it is idnetical) than the gene after the first mutation (which is in fact different from the gene before the first mutation and again the gene after the second mutation).
afDave -- more tard than Springer, just less power.
no hugs for thugs,