Changes

:: '''Response''': I take it your claim is that all mutations cause a loss of genetic information. This claim is false. Consider: if all mutations cause a loss of genetic information, then point mutations cause a loss of genetic information. But all point mutations are reversible—that is, the nucleotide that changes can change back. So if the original point mutation caused a loss of information, the reversed mutation must cause a gain in information.--[[User:Stereotypical A|Stereotypical A]] 20:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)

:: '''Response''': I take it your claim is that all mutations cause a loss of genetic information. This claim is false. Consider: if all mutations cause a loss of genetic information, then point mutations cause a loss of genetic information. But all point mutations are reversible—that is, the nucleotide that changes can change back. So if the original point mutation caused a loss of information, the reversed mutation must cause a gain in information.--[[User:Stereotypical A|Stereotypical A]] 20:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Having studied and worked with scientists for a decade, and spending another decade debating armchair evolutionists, I've found that it is usually someone unsuccessful in the hard sciences (physical, chemistry, biology and you might add mathematics) who is drawn most to evolution.  The late evolution-promoter  Stephen Jay Gould, for example, was merely a geology major at Antioch College.  Big evolution promoter Richard Dawkins was an assistant professor at Berkeley, and then a lecturer, and then it's not clear to me what his academic status was for a while.  Meanwhile, real experts, such as Richard Sternberg who has TWO PhDs in evolution fields, have been critical of the theory.  But Sternberg was harshly disciplined for daring to question the theory, and few are anxious to risk similar retaliation.

Having studied and worked with scientists for a decade, and spending another decade debating armchair evolutionists, I've found that it is usually someone unsuccessful in the hard sciences (physical, chemistry, biology and you might add mathematics) who is drawn most to evolution.  The late evolution-promoter  Stephen Jay Gould, for example, was merely a geology major at Antioch College.  Big evolution promoter Richard Dawkins was an assistant professor at Berkeley, and then a lecturer, and then it's not clear to me what his academic status was for a while.  Meanwhile, real experts, such as Richard Sternberg who has TWO PhDs in evolution fields, have been critical of the theory.  But Sternberg was harshly disciplined for daring to question the theory, and few are anxious to risk similar retaliation.