Evolution................. What?

Are they even trying any more, or has AiG finally cottoned onto the fact there's no need to go through anything more than the motions because their audience will do all the mental gymnastics for them?

"Where did you get your information from, bub?"

First, as far as the actual, intended definition of the word, genomes contain no information at all. The only reason we say they do is that once upon a time, someone decided it was easier to misapply the word information to describe what genes are and what they do rather than either spell it out long-hand or coin a new word to refer to it.

Second, since Creationists never quite cover the definition of what a 'kind' is, it's virtually impossible to establish whether we have observed one 'kind' of thing change into another 'kind' of thing. This is a point of contention on which Creationists are especially slippery, I suspect because there are examples that invalidate some aspect of their argument concerning 'kinds' on every biological level.

If you define 'kind' as a species, then we've observed many 'kinds' change into one another. Point that out, and 'kind' becomes something different, such as the 'dog kind' or the 'cat kind'. Of course, we can easily recognize them by their appearance because one 'kind' of thing can never change into another 'kind' of thing or develop unfamiliar features. For instance:

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/49/38549-004-4C172A4E.jpg
http://www.predatorconservation.com/images/stripedhyena1.jpg
http://cdn1.arkive.org/media/31/311CB57E-09EF-47CD-AD6F-5181C2094975/Presentation.Large/Sunda-pangolin-side-view.jpg
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/Ecology/mimesis/images/leaf_insect.jpg
http://images.wildmadagascar.org/pictures/isalo/walking_stick0071.jpg
http://ih0.redbubble.net/work.618753.5.flat,550x550,075,f.leafy-sea-dragon.jpg

Simple, right? Everyone knows the first is a kind of dog (not a raccoon), the second is a kind of feline (not a dog), the third is a kind of mammal (not a reptile), the fourth and fifth are kinds of insects (not leaves and sticks), and the last one is obviously a kind of fish.

But fine. 'Dog kind', 'cat kind', 'ape kind'... I guess they have no problem with humans evolving from apes, then, because humans and apes are the same 'kind' of animal. Nope, there's no way an animal can change that drastically within its own kind. We know that from observational science. For instance, take the Paenungulata. They're a perfect example, since these are three surviving members of the clade:

http://travel.mongabay.com/kenya/600/kenya_3444.jpg
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/004/cache/african-elephant_435_600x450.jpg
http://animal.discovery.com/mammals/manatee/pictures/manatee-picture.jpg

Wow. The evolutionary barrier is so clear there, isn't it? I can't imagine how anyone would ever come to the conclusion the process of evolution could possibly lead to radical biological differences.

"Original Recipe"

Foiled by KFC! We'd have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for that pesky Colonel.

Unfortunately, this is so full of $#!+ it's not even funny. Miller-Urey wasn't a failed experiment. You know what their grand, hyper-intelligent experiment was? They dumped the basic inorganic molecules found on Earth into a sterile, sealed environment, and heated them up. That's it. The result was organic molecules forming spontaneously. There is no way around it. Whether they got the conditions of early Earth just right is irrelevant; they proved the concept. Organic molecules can assemble spontaneously from inorganic components given a favorable environment.

This has been confirmed at great length by other researchers throughout the years, and even observed in other parts of the Universe. It snows methane (a common organic precursor molecule) on Titan. The sugar glycoaldehyde (a ribose precursor which forms the backbone of both the replication system and the energy production system of life) has been found floating in the dead of space. There's even simple life that does nothing but make inorganic material into organic lifeforms. They're called asexual chemosynthetic autotrophs. They eat nothing but inorganic matter, assemble it into organic molecules, and build copies of themselves. How much more obvious does it need to be than finding a nebula made of the building blocks of life, a moon where it snows organic byproducts, and watching a bunch of mindless cells endlessly building life out of rocks and water before people catch on this really is possible?

"The Bible provides an eyewitness account of how the universe and all life came to be."

No, it doesn't. According to the Bible, Genesis was written by MOSES. He wasn't even alive to see Noah's flood happen, let alone the creation of the world. Genesis is at best a hearsay account, not an eye-witness account. AiG is flat out lying on this one.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Just like gravity is. Or atomic theory. Evolution occurring is a fact, just like gravity is a fact.

As for AIG...
"Where’d You Get Your Information, Bub?"

There's a scientific explanation for this. See these videos by cdk007...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc

More importantly, so what if the common ancestor, which contained this "information" was magically created (there's no good reason to think this is the case, but let's accept it just to show how silly creationist nonsense is)? Oh right, it has no bearing on evolution, because evolution deals with life after it's already here, and by their silly weasel-wording anyone can claim life requires "information".

"Original Recipe"

No bearing on evolution. Evolution deals with life once it's here...

Plus, it's an outright lie. While abiogenesis is just getting started as an area of science, that's far from saying it's impossible. Heck, there are even reasons to think it might be possible, and reasons to think it did occur if you eliminate supernatural causes (namely, that we're here).

And, the Miller-Urey thing... A lie repeated by creationists, again and again and again. There was just a question about this, too.

Answers in Genesis is a Creationist website. If you want good information on evolution, try this one:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

It didn't set forth much of an argument. People may disagree on the particulars, but evolution did occur and continues to occur. In some cases it was gradual, and in other cases it was punctuated. You're behind the times. Even the pope accepts evolution nowadays, and most churches don't have a major problem with evolution. Evolution is even taught in Catholic schools.

It kind of made me lol. Obviously, someone with a low IQ wrote it.

Seriously, Answers in Genesis? What a joke.

Edit: The conclusion made me laugh. They're pretending to be all scientific and then,
"So, if evolution can’t explain how humans came to be (or any other living thing, for that matter), what can? The Bible. Yep, God’s Word.
The Bible provides an eyewitness account of how the universe and all life came to be. There’s no speculation or strange interpretation needed. You can just read how God created everything in six days a few thousand years ago. Simple. Factual."

Rofl. "We don't understand science, so we'll use this, old book." And do they deny theistic evolution on purpose? Like, what, the only people who accept evolution are atheists now? Idiots.

Bunk.

Try this:

Propaganda… what else?

It's completely wrong. One thing is that it claims we haven't seen populations evolving from one 'kind' to another. This is complete nonsense; we have observed evolution from one species to another (a link to one example in the source). Of course, saying organisms can't evolve from one species to another is simple ignorance: It's a subjective term, it's at our discretion whether or not two organisms are the same species or not.
In the face of this, they tend to say (for the example) "It's a different species, but still a mosquito!". If a more extreme case of evolution were shown they'd say it was still an invertebrate, still an animal, and so on. That's why they say an organism's "kind", instead of any scientifically valid term. When you give them an example, they can just say they didn't mean that and move on to the next vague term. Of course, this is desperation. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that mutations somehow magically won't work because it would cause a population to move from the same group as their long gone ancestors, especially when those groups are purely human inventions. How does DNA know that we've put organisms in groups, and why isn't it going to change from one to the other?

"Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law—the Law of Biogenesis, to be exact."
Shocking as this may seem, reality doesn't care about whatever fictional laws people care to impose upon it. Notice how they didn't present any evidence for this claim.
What's so magical about replicating molecules that some kind of force is going to naturally stop them coming into being? We already know nucleotide bases come into being naturally given half a chance (even in space, not just the early Earth), literally the only thing that needs to happen is for them to join together.


Ever notice how the only people who deny evolution are those with a religious interest in doing so? That nobody other than religious YE-Creationist fundamentalists can see these apparently obvious and devastating flaws?


Edit: Ah, I see CRR's given up on even trying to appear like he understands the subject. My friend, I'm afraid it is indeed sceintifically testable.

Evolution: It's not science.

It's true!

And Answers in Genesis is great!