Joined: June 2007
|Quote (Ftk @ June 12 2008,10:54)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 12 2008,09:39)|
|Quote (dnmlthr @ June 12 2008,09:24)|
|Quote (Ftk @ June 12 2008,15:07)|
|Of course. I've never argued that there are not any lateral mutations that benefit an organism. I'm saying that they are very few and far between, they are ~relatively~ non-existent, and that they are the result of massively complex systems already fully functional.|
Only a few pages back you said the following:
Common design. Mutations that have a negative affect on mammals. They break down the system, not build it up, btw.
LOL, classic - FTK which is it, one or the other?
Oh, for God's sake. I've always concurred that there are occasional mutations that can produce slight lateral changes in an organism without causing damage.
Hello? How long have I been in this debate? How long have I been discussing these same issues over and over and over? Mutations are brought up all the freaking time.
I didn't say mutations "only" have a negative affect, but essentially that is usually how they affect an organism.
Any evidence for that at all?
You've got a nasty habit of making grand pronouncements about scientific fields you know nothing about.
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris