Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike33
Evolution presupposes that traits with benefits will be introduced and reproduced to keep a species alive and flourishing in its environment. Mutations therefore are not an example of evolution in the purest sense because they do the opposite.
|
See.. you haven't studied it properly or read the same books mutations don't neccessarily do the opposite at all. Mutations are how the traits come about in the first place.. Stop thinking about mutations as deformed limbs and more as what they actually mean.. 1% more body hair in a cold environment.. 1% more melatonin in a hot environment etc. Are there a lot of mutations that go along the lines of 1% less body hair in a cold environment? sure there are, they die out gradually as the 1% more's take over..
your statement
"Evolutionists on one hand tell us that mutations are an abberation, not something positive, and therefore not an example of evolution. But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution, they point to mutations as an example of it."
is seriously uninformed. firstly as i've pointed out no evolutionist says mutations aren't positive - it's the whole crux of the whole bloody idea it's like saying "creationists on one hand tell us that theres no way creationism could possibly have happened" Then you go onto the even worse line of "But when we tell them their is no evidence for evolution".. I mean sure.. if you don't understand most of whats being said then yeah i can understand how you can fabricate the misguided notion there is no evidence.. but hey.. if you want to ignore the elephant in the living room thats your problem.
*yawn* anyways bedtime...