tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post8874370555163274234..comments2023-10-25T10:45:54.660-05:00Comments on Answers in Genesis BUSTED!: Evolution for Creationists Part ThreeAIGBustedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-39958772048610618552007-12-01T05:34:00.000-06:002007-12-01T05:34:00.000-06:00About the apparition of new information in the gen...About the apparition of new information in the genome...<BR/><BR/>It is a common mistake that Creationists make to assume that new information must be added to the individual - it is the species that evolves, not the individual, and therefore there isn't a need for a mechanism that would add information to an individual's genome.<BR/><BR/>An exemple: Let's say that you've written up the whole genome of species A. Let's also say that every individual of species A has brown eyes; then one day an individual of that species is born with blue eyes (because of a mutation). What happens? You have to reopen your book where you've noted down the whole genetic makeup of species A and <B>add the genetic information that causes an individual from that species to have blue eyes</B>.<BR/><BR/>That's as simple as that. You can count on Creationists to create false problems.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-70974029917439018992007-11-27T18:01:00.000-06:002007-11-27T18:01:00.000-06:00Indeed, the evidence from whales alone makes a hug...Indeed, the evidence from whales alone makes a huge case for evolution. We have several transitional fossils, whales develop hair as embryos, and finally we have proof positive of atavisms in whales (legs).AIGBustedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232781356086767207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6802109362344250457.post-47505841421827036002007-11-27T16:06:00.000-06:002007-11-27T16:06:00.000-06:00The first time I heard about cetacean (whale) evol...The first time I heard about cetacean (whale) evolution, it was from Terry Mortensen, a lecturer from AiG. (We were crashing their party to editorialize)<BR/><BR/>To be quite honest, I admit that I was skeptical. The idea was "cetaceans evolved from Pakicetus, which was a tapir-like animal." This seemed really far-fetched. I figured maybe Terry didn't fully understand it, so I went and read online about it myself. <BR/><BR/>The evidence is pretty compelling, and I admit that after reading several different documents and seeing pictures and photos of the fossils, it just MADE SENSE. <BR/><BR/>Things like jaw bone, the direction they flap their fins (vertically) which is different than fish (laterally), and then of course the fact that they are AQUATIC MAMMALS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com