a. Yes, you described it perfectly. It was meant to reflect the nonsense of evolution.
b. Evolution has no proof, cannot be observed or tested, and has no substantiated facts supporting it. You can go over it again, but you can't make evolution anything other than a fanciful delusion.
c. Thank you for the admission.
d. The clam mutation is a deleterious mutation. The subpopulation of clams actually LOST the ability to metabolize saxitoxin. Are you now claiming that deleterious mutations will go on to evolve more complex organisms? (The following quote is from ‘Nature.’)
“Resistance is caused by natural mutation of a single amino acid residue, which causes a 1,000-fold decrease in affinity at the saxitoxin-binding site in the sodium channel pore of resistant, but not sensitive, clams.”
(The keyword being ‘decrease.’)
e. In regard to your comment,
“mutations do not render DNA non-functional. You are deliberately trying to mislead the majority of the public who are not versed in genetics.”
You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in pointing this error out. While it was meant to directly relate to the specific mutated gene within DNA, the DNA as a whole is obviously still functional. The correction has been submitted and should be done on Monday. Thank you for pointing this out.
In regard to your comment,
“Again, a new trait is not trying to achieve some magical end.”
Then, please explain in detail why the initial mutation (in relationship to the pressure sensitivity apparatus) would cause the organism to be ‘more fit’ and reproduce itself at a high enough rate to pass that mutation on (natural selection).
Also, do you believe that an increase in bone mass or a cell membrane has function by itself? If so, please explain in detail how you arrived at that conclusion.
f. It’s interesting how evolutionists ALWAYS claim, “Totally consistent with evolutionary theory” when science contradicts their faith. No further comment necessary …
g. In regard to your comment,
“A single point mutation can drastically INCREASE an organism's chances for survival.”
You need to prove that a mutation produces more complex organisms, not that it enables it to reproduce a ‘like’ organism. Otherwise, your theory goes nowhere.
h. In regard to your comment,
“An existing feature will evolve until further change does not improve that organisms chances for survival.”
So, why it is that evolutionists can’t prove this to be true in artificial breeding?
Just a good tidbit for you …
“Selection against deleterious mutations imposes a mutation load on populations because individuals die or fail to reproduce.”
i. In regard to your comment:
“Absolutely absurd. Each organism has adapted to its particular environment. There are many environments on this planet and many species.”
How very interesting that Darwin wrote the below quote and put it under the topic, ‘Difficulties of the Theory’ in his book.
“First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”
Are you claiming that Darwin was “Absolutely absurd” also?
Since you believe that mutations don’t ‘corrupt’ DNA, why are mutations referred to as copying ‘errors’?
“In a sense, mutation is a failure to store the genetic information faithfully.”
4. Your original statement was:
“How did a chance mutation create the ability to sense pressure? I think I answered this, however perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The answer is unknown. Furthermore, your question is more closely related to the "origins of life" question than it is to the evolution question.”
Why is the question of how chance mutations could create the ability to sense pressure more closely related to the "origins of life"?
6. In regard to your comment,
“Oh, I forgot that I conceded that evolutionists don't know how evolution works. Oh wait, that's because I DIDN'T make that statement at all!”
Since you still think you do (but can’t specifically explain let alone prove it) here are admissions from evolutionists in the field we were focusing on:
“But how such transduction from mechanical to electrical signals works on a molecular scale remains unclear … The identity and precise mechanism of action of these mechano-transducing channels remain obscure, however.”
“Even though well characterized at a biophysical level, the mechanical transduction mechanism of hair cells is still not understood in molecular terms … Although the transduction channel has attracted much attention, it too has yet to be identified.”
In regard to your comment,
“Even you know how point mutations can and do occur in an organism's genetic code. I showed how a single or small number of mutations can dramatically alter the function of a protein and greatly increase an organism's chances for survival.”
What you haven’t made a case for is how mutations continuously build on each other and proceed with unlimited changes.
In regard to your comment:
“Further, I did not put forth a theory. Please look up the definitions of "hypothesis", "theory", and "law".”
You claimed to “have written a plausible testable hypothesis” and that you presented “a plausible, testable explanation,” so please provide your formulated conclusions and we’ll go over it and assess them for you. That’s how a scientific method is supposed to go, unless you believe you can just make one up and call it fact.
In regard to your comment:
“I am pleased that you have finally improved your understanding of evolution. Yes, it supports the idea that incremental changes over time, through a series of functional intermediates, is what leads to new features. Evolution does not support the idea of "partial features", and it certainly does not support the occurrence of a large number of changes suddenly creating an entirely new feature. Please revise your website accordingly.”
Since you can’t explain (let alone prove) new apparatuses arise from mutations and natural selection other than claiming they do it ‘incrementally,’ we’ll keep the site as it is until you guys figure it out.
7. Gravity WAS a theory until it was PROVEN to be fact, unlike the theory of evolution.
Thank you for your admission that the theory of evolution HAS NOT been proven.
If you want to try to prove creation, go ahead but trying to prove creation is of no interest or concern to us.
8. In regard to your comment,
“Once again (how many times have I said this), you deliberately try to mislead. You imply that this article, from a highly reputable journal, somehow refutes evolution. When in fact, the very premise of the article is how we evolved and who we evolved from.”
Your original statement referred to human evolution, not evolution in general.
(Your statement: “The theory of evolution would be very easy to disprove, for example if you found a human skull in a fossil source predating humans. But that hasn't happened.”)
What I implied was the same as what was stated in the article. There is NO proof of human evolution:
“The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors.