I have more to say on common descent, but before I go to bed I'd like to touch on one more thing concerning your lies about increases in genetic information:
Beneficial mutations, being what they are, can either mean a LOSS or GAIN in genetic information. It depends on how it BENEFITS the organism.
So whether or not you call it "incease in information" or "beneficial mutations," it all amounts to the same thing.
If you don't deny benficial mutations, you don't deny increases in genetic information.
"No matter what example is offered as evidence that mutations can generate an increase in information, Creationists naturally have rationales for regarding that example as a case of loss of information. But every time Creationists "prove" another mutation to be an example of information loss, they add one more item to the list of biological changes which don't require a gain of information! If this pattern continues, Creationists will eventually "prove" that no biological change requires an increase in information; hence, they will have destroyed their own argument."
I can go on and on about increases in information. There's a plethora of sources about it. The INCREASE IN INFORMATION is practically endless, there's so much information about increases in information.
Are you ready to admit you're lying about increases in genetic information, or do you want to try and twist words around? Maybe make a last-minute change to what "information" means? To what "increase" means? Do you plan to invent your own language?
|