Quote:

Just because we can observe more regressive mutations than progressive mutations doesn't quite mean anything within evolution.



No, what you mean to say is, "We only observe regressive mutations." There's no such thing as a progressive mutation, except what exists within the imagination of evolutionists.

A progressive mutation doesn't necessarily have to be a good mutation, and a regressive mutation isn't necessarily a bad mutation. When I say progressive and regressive, I'm referring to what happens on the genetic level, not on the natural selection level.

Quote:

so having this degradation, doesn't really make any difference



In the case of evolution it does. If you keep degrading a bacteria species, no matter how many times you degrade it it will never become a human.

Quote:

For example our ape-like ancestors lost their tails by a mutation



An opinion. No one saw this happen. And since the 'tail' bone has a purpose, and we would be worse off without it, it stands to reason that it was in our original design as a human, not as an ancestor of ape. Either way, what you're saying is simply opinion. Prove that we used to have tails once. I'd love to see that happen.

I know you can't show how it devolved from ape tails, but the point is is that you have no physical evidence of it happening. And unless you can prove the mechanism (mutations) for it to happen, then you might as well quit repeating your opinion.

Quote:

Evolution doesn't require anything



This just goes to show how little you understand the theory you believe. Evolution requires that vast amounts of genetic data be written from scratch. Otherwise a germ couldn't become an ape, or a snail, or anything else.

So it has requirements.

Quote:

Wether this means we grow a third hand with data copied from existing gene-info



So you're saying that non-evolutionary changes can lead to change. You're just getting the different definitions of evolution confused. Evolution loosely means change, but that doesn't mean that all change falls within the category of the kind of evolution you're talking about. If creatures are constantly degrading over time, that doesn't show how your version of evolution can happen.

Quote:

when we look at a certain point in the human's embryo development, then it has fin-like hands, so basically that would be degradation.



No. It would mean that ours hands don't magically spring into hands out of nowhere, we have to start as a ball of unformed cells before we become well-formed adults. This has nothing to do with anything. I'm absolutely baffled....

Quote:

I think that's why regressive mutations play a big role in our evolution.



No, you think regressive mutations play a big role in evolution because you don't even know the basics (the extreme basics) of genetic theory.

Quote:

any mutation for that matter will be passed on and only stay within a species when it's either neutral or positive for survival.



I already know how evolution supposedly works. Please, you don't need to try and teach me how evolution works. All the supposed evidence of evolution hasn't stood up to scrutiny or the test of time. Your theory is failing.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/17/06 01:34.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."