Evolutionists- Explain this......?

Several of your points are wrong.

"An organism can adapt itself to new environment...--Mostly True." Not quite. It is a species that adapts itself to a new environment because of an accumulation of beneficial mutations in its population. It is a species that evolves.

"An organism can develop a new organ to adapt......--Could be true.." Again, a new organ can only appear by gradual modification of a pre-existing organ or structure over many generations. And again, it is the species that gradually develops a new organ, not wholesale in one organism.

"A virus can copy any information but cannot change itself into a new Being...--- Definitely True" What do you mean by a new being? If you mean a quite different virus, that could be true, as viruses can pick up new genetic material from other viruses or from the organisms it infects.

The previous answerers have refuted your arguments about added information fairly well. I will just give a brief example of one item that was previously mentioned.

Most mammals have only two-color vision, but the great apes, including us, have three-color vision. This occurred because the gene that controlled sensitivity to one of the colors duplicated in an early common ancestor of the apes and humans. One of those genes continued to work with the original color, but the extra gene over time had a mutation that shifted the frequency of the color that it was sensitive to. The result was that a more recent common ancestor of apes and humans acquired three-color vision, with the result that apes and humans all have three-color vision.

Does that clarify things?

Added:

Oops, it looks like secretsauce updated his answer while I was working on mine and also provided the explanation for three-color vision.

1. Viruses don't change themselves into other forms. They evolve. (their offspring is more fit than their ancestors).

Organisms don't change depending on their surroundings (not their genes, anyway). SPECIES change, depending on their surroundings.

Mendel wasn't the father of modern genetics, he was the father of genetics (A//a, A//A, a//a).

Watson and Crick were the fathers of modern genetics (DNA, RNA, mutations).

Who cares about Darwin? Watson and Crick proved both Mendel and Darwin were right (mostly). Modern genetics explained the evidence further, and provided more. Whatever Mendel and Darwin might have said, it doesn't matter: evolution is true, based on the evidence we have today.

Actually, 1-5 all happen randomly without purpose, signals, goal or method. They're random.

We DO know how genes work. YOU don't.

Duplication of gene -> more DNA, same amount of information.

Point mutation -> same amount of DNA, different information

Therefore, duplication + point mutation -> more DNA, of which one of the two copies has different information.

So that's an increase of information.

In for a penny, in for a pound. If you allow for gene duplication and point mutation, the information in the gene can increase.

But it doesn't have to be point mutations: whole sections of coding genes can just vanish, or just be added somewhere. Imagine half a gene is copied in the midsts of another gene - then the new gene will produce a completely new protein. New information, new function, new genes.

You're assuming "adding" genes and "genes that change" are two mutually exclusive things. They aren't. A simple point mutation can completely change the function of a gene.

"but recombination is sexual mixing and once again cannot add any data to the genome"

Yeah. You're way off here. "adding" and "changing" are not mutually exclusive. They're the same thing. A simple point mutation in a yeast transporter protein turns it into a protein involved in drug resistance. That's called evolution.

"We are wonderfully and fearfully made."

Just because you don't understand genetics, doesn't make this statement true. And it certainly isn't proof. You belong in philosophy class.

> "evolutionist believe that humans do not have a soul, and spirit and that we are completely accidentally formed by chance right?" No. [1] no field of science, evolution or otherwise, can comment on the existence of the soul. The soul, if it exists, is a non-physical phenomenon, and is therefore not open to investigation through science. [2] evolution is *not* "chance" or "accident", it is a process guided by natural selection, which is totally not random. > "how do they explain guilt? and saddness? and happiness?" Emotions are an important feature of our brains' function. We are social animals, so feelings of guilt, etc. are part of that socialisation (easily explained by evolution). And happiness/sadness/ etc. are also explainable as motivational drives for directing us towards (evolutionarily) advantageous behaviour. If we didn't feel happy or sad, there would be no reason to behave in specific ways. > "these are no functions of what we can see or explain." Sorry, but yes they are!

Why bother. Read a book on genetics, you will find that evolution is the underlying paradigm and all your questions will be answered there.

If you ever wan't to genuinely understand science, (and most creationists have no interest in understanding real science or advancing it, which is why they almost never write scientific papers of their own) read some proper text books, aviod AIG, psudo-science books by creationists and perhaps subscribe to science or nature.

In the meantime, for an example of one thing changing into something different how about an eye that only sees in black and white being able to see in colour due to duplication and point muattion?

The Evolution of Trichromatic Color Vision by Opsin Gene Duplication in New World and Old World Primates

Kanwaljit S. Dulai, Miranda von Dornum, John D. Mollon, and David M. Hunt

The point you are missing is that those 6 types of mutations you list do NOT occur in isolation, but happen in combination ... and these combinations do not have to occur at the *same time*.

Yes, you can define "new data" in such a way, so that none of those 6 *by itself* can "produce new data" ... but *COMBINE* them and they do!

Specifically, #1 (duplication) coupled with any of mutations 2-6 absolutely DOES produce "new data."

If a segment of DNA is *duplicated*, and then (perhaps *10 million years later*) one of those duplicate copies experiences an inversion, deletion, insertion mutation ... then the result is a brand new segment of DNA ... a new *gene* ... that did not exist 10 million years ago!

For example, that very process (duplication followed much later by another kind of mutation) appears to be exactly why Old World primates (humans, apes, and the monkeys of Africa and Asia) all have three-color vision, while the New World primates (the monkeys of Central and South America) have two-color vision. From DNA (the structure of the genes, and their location on the same chromosome) we see evidence that the opsin gene that codes one of the two pigments that produce color vision, experienced a duplication mutation which produced the third opsin gene. Since it was identical to the second, this would neither be beneficial nor detrimental to the individuals that had it. But then much later this third opsin gene experienced a point mutation that changed the peak wavelength that the resulting pigment (protein) responded to. The result: three-color vision, which *is* advantageous, thus propagated into that species and all its descendants.

That these two opsin genes both live on the X-chromosome explains why 'color blindness' affects males more than females. That these mutations (duplication followed by point mutation) occurred *after* the split between Old World and New World primates (because of continental drift) explains why primates on one side of the Atlantic all have exactly the same kind of three-color vision (same pigments, same chromosomes), and primates on the other side of the Atlantic only have two-color vision ... they lack that third opsin gene.

Question for you: Would you agree that going from two opsin genes to three opsin genes (which takes us from two-color vision to three-color vision) is "new data"?

.

Have you ever studied Evolution? No. Keep reading Creationists bull**it.

Let's pretend that Evolution is false (That isn't going to happen). Now, please present your alternative hypothesis or theory with evidence without attacking Evolution. Your well constructed idea should stand on it's own merit. You have none though.

Kitzmiller Vs. Dover exposed ID as Creationism and several Creationists had to admit that ID didn't have a theory and that it wasn't even science.

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Steve Jones, the award-winning geneticist and author, argued that suggesting that creationism and evolution be given equal weight in education was “rather like starting genetics lectures by discussing the theory that babies are brought by storks”.

"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution, ignorance is."

John Stear- NoAnswersInGenesis

"Nothing in Biology makes sense except in light of Evolution." Theodeus Dobzhansky

The vast majority of what you've presented is not true. It does not describe natural selection. It does not accurately state the fundamentals of evolution. It is very obvious to anyone that is familiar with this theory and the facts that support it, that your are serving your own agenda.

i was going to chime in, but i think you might cry if you get another asswhooping...

props to all previous answers