We publish this exchange, hoping to clear up some misunderstandings.
On Oct 27, 2012, at 12:52 AM, XXXX wrote:
Hello, I am aware that you reject Common descent, but there seems to be plenty of evidences for and most scientists support it.
TalkOrigins made a response to Intelligent Designers by showing that there are indeed many fossils which prove common descent to be true. Do you view all these fossils as false?!
• CC211. There are gaps between invertebrates and vertebrates.
• CC212. There are gaps between fish and amphibians.
• CC213. There are gaps between amphibians and reptiles.
• CC214. There are gaps between reptiles and birds.
• CC214.1. Archaeopteryx was probably not an ancestor of modern birds.
• CC214.1.1. Archaeopteryx is fully bird
• CC215. There are gaps between reptiles and mammals.
• CC216.1. There are gaps between land mammals and whales.
• CC216.2. Horse fossils do not show evolution.
• CC220. Arthropods arose suddenly.
• CC220.1. There are no fossil ancestors of insects.
• CC250. There are no fossil ancestors of plants.
• CC251. Progymnosperms are imaginary evolutionary ancestors.
TalkOrigins have also responded to ID supporters that half an eye and a wing have a use contrary to what ID supporters states.
1-How confident are you that mutations don’t produce new genetic information and is ”Irreducible complexity” a thing of the past which has been refuted?
2-How did the animals of today look in the past and before Adam and Eve, who existed?
3-Doesn’t Darwinian evolution explain morality, language, homosexuality and other behaviors much more efficiently than an ID who runs under God of the Gaps?
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:44:24 -0700
Thank you for your interest in the work of Biologic Institute, but in point of fact, we do not make the claims you have indicated above. Some of our researchers are open to the idea of common descent, while others question it. We are all in agreement, though, that unguided processes are insufficient to produce the kinds of changes you have indicated, whether or not common descent is true.
Biologic Institute Staff
On Nov 1, 2012, at 6:57 PM, XXXX wrote:
Are mutations beneficial? Can they produce genetic information and do you accept the evolutionist account for the origin of life?
Some mutations can be beneficial. The question about new genetic information is a bit more difficult. See, for example, the post about Lenski’s long term evolution experiment in which cells developed the ability to metabolize citrate (http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/32246480851/innovation-or-renovation). And the phrase “the evolutionist account for the origin of life” is too vague to answer, but my guess is, we don’t accept your version.
Biologic Institute Staff
On Nov 2, 2012, at 11:04 AM, XXXX wrote:
So if you accept genetic mutations and see them as beneficial then God is not necessary at this point. Since mutations along with natural selection can produce the wide variety of life, where’s God in the picture, we can explain everything in terms of mutations. I am sure you also reject Irreducible complexity.
We suggest you read some of our papers, available at www.BIO-Complexity.org. Then perhaps you won’t leap from the existence of small-scale beneficial mutations to the conclusion that unguided processes can explain everything.
Biologic Institute Staff.