Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (qetzal @ Dec. 13 2011,07:21)|
|Why does there have to be "novel genetic material" and what does that actually mean? If a series of mutations altered existing genes and led to some new function, would that count as new added genetic material?|
See in there minds, nothing new can be created by nature. Remember Behe's study? Almost all mutations are negative or involve a loss of function. This for them is a law.
They state that if you don't have new genetic material how do you create new organs, how do you get from bacteria to humans without new genetic material.
That's why for them the ultimate proof of evolution is something that disproves this. Although I have no doubt that they will move the goal post once you offer them this proof.
I have to add that because most of them are not very learnered (niether am I actually at least in biology I have a degree in international economics) what they want to see is a new species (preferebly an animal) that arises due to new genetic material.
The example of the lizard would have been great but the evolution could have been due to other factors not necessarily new genetic material.
Another thing that would greatly weeken their argument is a peer reviewed paper that is critical of Behe's work.
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin