Faid
Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
IT'S GOT A TITLE, THEREFORE IT'S TRUE:
DAVE'S LATEST IN SCIENCE-SMASHING ARGUMENTS
(1) We never said disease resistant bacteria is proof for macroevolution (which is not true at all--see World Book for example) (Can you please show me where it says "macroevolution" in your snippings, Dave?)
(2) Here go read these links that disprove what you say, Dave (I've never read them because you have to pay for all the articles, but you go read 'em, Dave) (They're called abstracts, Dave. They're free, Dave. They're more than enough to show you how far everything you say is from contemporary knowledge in genetics, Dave.)
(3) What about the old 'nylon-eating' bacteria? (Team member shoots down argument for Dave) (Are you talking about me, Dave? Please please pretty please tell me you were talking about me, Dave...  )
(4) Dr. Anderson is just making his own definition of evolution (yeah, because it's really hard to nail down evolutionists on what their definition is and what is proper terminology) (Maybe you should read the first pages of your "Prove evolution to me" thread again, Dave... Unless by "proper" you mean "A strawman I can beat up")
So, Dave, how about answering my question? If another point mutation makes the bacterium sensitive to rifampin again, according to Mr. Anderson, which function will be lost?
BTW, I like the way you honestly, sincerely and Christianly snipped sceptic's assumptions... Don't worry though, I have a hunch he's much more up your alley than you think. 
--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."
|
