-The tail bone doesn't have a purpose at all.
-Evolution doesn't require new data to be written from scratch the way you think it does. It goes way more gradually, thinking about a germ to ape is a step that's way to big. Yes, it happened in the long run, but you don't wish to see all the steps in between.
-Just because you believe there is no such thing as progressive mutation, doesn't mean they can't happen/didn't appear in the past.
-Growing a third hand because of an mutation is basically a form of evolution when it gives an advantage having that 3rd hand. Thus what do you mean with non-evolutionary change here? Just because you don't believe in evolution, doesn't mean you can simply ignore that fact that we see it as part of evolution. (i'm talking mutations, beneficial ones.) You try to fit the evolution theory within your framework of thoughts, that's not going to fit at all when you keep having this biased view on it. No, I'm not saying it's wrong or something to not believe in the evolution theory.
-'progressive' or 'regressive' on the genetic level is basically equal in effect to the natural selection level, you make a distinction where there is none to be found and I was referring to the same. A genetic change affects the natural selection process just aswell.

Quote:

---

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....

---

You're not understanding my point here at all. I meant that if there's information that let's us develop hands from fin-like shapes first, then it doesn't surprise me at all that a mutation could cause fins to stay. Just to give an example of an effect of degradation. Well if one way is possible, what makes the other way less possible? The writing of new genetic data from scratch is a non-argument, because is it really impossible like you suggest? No, to say the least there are all kinds of mutations that have caused certain humans to have 6 or even 7 fingers, a second ear, not fully developed hands or feet etc. etc.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Honestly your statements keep telling me otherwise.

Quote:

---

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.

---

This for example. You don't believe new genetic data can come into existance through mutations, that's fine, but it is a part of the evolution theory. A little gambling with the building blocks of life sounds more plausible to me then the creation theory and we've got more evidence, were creationists got nothing.

And about that evidence not standing up to scrutiny or the test of time, I don't agree, quite the contrary, your religion is failing. Believe what you wish, 'dark age' and biblical prediction or not, but I would not be surprised when christianity would dissappear within a few decades (50-100 yrs?) because religion itself has failed to withstand the test of time. Again, where is your evidence for creation? Your theory isn't scientific, that means backed-up properly with solid evidence. Your theory is based around a faith, evolution is no religious belief. Yes, the evolution theory has it's question marks in certain areas, but those are only small pieces in the big puzzle. You claim there are too much assumptions going through life as facts, well then I also want to remind you that evolution is a theory and in my opinion a pretty plausible one and not every assumption is false. Infact I could write a book about all the assumptions your belief has. 900 year old people, changing water into wine, parting seas multiple times, floods, eve comming from adam's rib (it would make more sense if it happened the other way around if you ask me.) All this based upon the assumption of the possible existance of a God. Infact the bible is claimed to be a historic overview of what happened, and that's probably the biggest assumption of them all. What if the bible is wrong? What if all those miracles are just the imagination of their respective authors? What if it has been oral tradition written down in multiple books, just folklore? That would explain certain events that appear more than once. You see why I doubt your theory and thus the existance of God?

Darn, I'm starting to sound like a priest now. (I've got nothing against priests, I've only got something against the way they talk. )

Cheers