supersport
Posts: 158 Joined: Aug. 2007
|
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:53) | Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:48) | by the way, the pigmentation thing isn't really what I was asking for. Any mutation that can increase pigmentation is simply emphasizing what's already there...there is no new morphological addition....ie..new parts.
edit: here's my challenge again:
I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part. . . . (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.
Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death. . . . Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE. |
Could you give us an example?
For instance, what are the "new parts" between chimp and human, that make us, according to you, so much different? |
well, you've got to account for all the organs and tissues in the body...pick one and show me how a mutation can form one or part of one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anatomical_topics
|