How does cause and effect prove evolution is not real? Mutations have a cause, the effect is evolution, your point?
How forgetful are you? Or is it that you simply don't read what is posted?
One of the bottom line premises of evolution is mutation without a cause behind it. Since the only real "evolution" we have seen is in the lab, it has been caused by us, the people. So, lab-caused evolution doesn't even fit the theory of evolution.
There is more to evolution than mutation. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations.
Sometimes things do get built by accident. Many discoveries started out as accidents that people recognized uses for. Many other designs (accidental or not) have been selected against, that is, discarded. Design itself is an evolutionary process.
Experiments and genetic analysis show that mutations (plus selection) do account for new adaptations
There you go, trying to distract. Things that get built by accident, haven't really been built by accident. Oh, it might have looked like they were. But there was C&E moving in it all to make it not an accident.
Mutations are not spontaneous. They were programmed to happen by C&E. No evolution in the way that standard evolution theory says. Are you trying to re-define evolution?
You're confusing cause and effect with predeterminism... this entire goddamned thread. Go get some mental help.
You might be. But if you think you are not, can you explain why C&E wouldn't fit evolution?
Can you explain why 8 doesn't fit onomatopoeia? See how retarded you sound?
Nope! I can't presently "explain why 8 doesn't fit onomatopoeia?" But can you explain how C&E fit together with evolution, and yet present the spontaneity (randomness) required for there to be random mutations it it?
