[schmichael]

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

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:

perhaps you should start by explaining your theory of common descent? how can there not be a single common ancestor? are you proposing that for each species there was a seperate ancestor?

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

Beneficial mutations, being what they are, can either mean a LOSS or GAIN in genetic information. It depends on how it BENEFITS the organism.

you have yet to actually provide an example of a mutation increasing genetic info.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

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.

why do you say that. beneficial mutations can arise from either no change in the genetic info or from a loss of info.

example. shrivelled-eyed cave fish or flightless beetles on windswept islands, where the changes still involve loss of sight or flight.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

"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."

ah, a classic arguement. use a hypothetical situation where you have actually provided some evidence (like that's ever going to happen!), and then assume what my response will be. very clever.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

I can go on and on about increases in information.

no kidding?!! too bad nothing you have posted in any way backs up your claim of evolution of apes to humans.

sure you can show that fruit flies have evolved into fruit flies with slightly different characteristics, but it's a very long stretch to extrapolate that into humans evolving from apes.

whats next, you'll say that finches have evolved into different types of finches!!!

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

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?

no. it seems that only you resort to that tactic. especially since you don't even read or understand what others post. i may as well be talking in another language, given your track record of ignoring my posts and avoiding my rebuttals.