Joined: July 2006
|Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 12 2011,05:58)|
The latent gene is activated by different ambient conditions, in the case of the lizard, different diet. The designer is not called into question.
Then the question is how do we tell the difference between the options of a latent gene being activated and a new gene.
The real question is what will they think if you show them a totally new gene appearing? Will they then go "oh, you are right, evolution can create new genes" or will they push their god back into a smaller gap?
So get them to put it on the line. What is it that you think they will accept if you can show a new gene? That evolution does work? Really?
If so, you've already won.
|increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)|
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
| by reducing the possibility of having novel genes and by showing that loss of information can outpace even the few rare examples of gain. |
As they have not defined "informatio
n" how can they tell if it's lost or gained at all?
|The designer for the moment is not called into question by them. He will be for sure, but for now they are out to disprove that evolution could work.|
Evolution is an observed fact. There is no question there.
|1) Show people that evolution is faith based|
2) Show people that evolution can't work using scientific peer review papers al la mr. behe's work.
3) Ask people why they put their trust on such a falascious system
4) Provide a framework for an alternative which requires just as much faith and is simpler to understand and is backed by "scientific work".
5) initiate brainwashing procedures.
1) Evidence does not require faith. It's an observed fact.
2) For every paper showing that evolution does not work there are 10,000 showing that it does.
3) It produces results and predictions can be made.
4) Simpler to understand is the key. The details are hard work, it's just easier to throw up your hands and trust an "expert". It just so happens that the experts they have chosen to trust coincidentally are saying the things they want to hear.
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand