You mean... harmful mutations stay?!! *gasp!*
Yes, recessive negative mutations can remain within a genotype. In order for a mutation to be selected against, it has to be expressed. If it's recessive, then it's only exprecessed in certain cases, such as the gene coming from both parents.
And dogs being mixed results in... dogs.
Well, new phenotypes of dogs. Albeit hybridisation is really different from mutation (and selection leading to evolution) -in any case.
I mean, by that attitude, there's no such thing as a doberman or a terrier, they're all dogs. No such thing as persian or siamese, they're all cats. Etc.
Humorous thought: According to you guys, Noah would have had no trouble with having all the animals on the Ark... just bring a couple amoebae and watch 'em evolve!
Um, no. Well, not exactly. Evolution is a product of environment and a lot of time, so anything evolving on an ark (which as we know was actually impossible to build anyways) would take both millions of years or so, and be of a body type perfectly adapted to...live on an ark.
Oh look! viruses mutate and result in... hardier bacteria.
Yes, that is a classic example of evolution.
Bacteria mutates to have a resistance to a certain strain of medicine, for example; that mutation has a selected advantage, ergo it is able to reproduce into a new resistant form. Classic example of mutation and selection.
(NB: viruses do not mutate to bacteria; both are different type of organism)
Then how come it predicts specific events (e.g. the destruction of Tyre; Alexander the Great's empire's 4-way divide, etc.) even though it was written hundreds of years before the events took place?
You mean because it's been liberally interpreted and translated to do so? Why don't you quote the passages, then? Show us exactly why this couldn't, ooh, have been translated and read to fit known history, ala Nostradamus.
And of course the "scientific community" rejects creation. It's made up of people like... like... well, gee, I seem to have forgotten who they remind me of.
Obviously you've forgotten, given that you clearly have no understanding of basic scientific principles such as evidence-based conclusions and investigation.
Let me remind you. The scientific community is the community of people who have spent many, many years adhering to the scientific method of research and evidence gathering, of peer-reviewed results, and of only drawing conclusions that fit with reproducible evidence. In other words, the same basic principles that have led to just about every major advancement in the last century - plus - of human history (and that's putting it mildly). Seeing as you reject that, you might as well reject all of it's results and go back to living in a cave believing the world is flat.
The bit about Damadian not being the only person who invented the MRI?
He invented the MRI. (He has the patent.)The first MRI images were of his assistant (Damadian himself was too... um... large). Others copied his work. Guess why he was passed over for the Nobel Prize.
Read what I posted previously, and read up on the history of maghnetic resonance imaging.
In any case, he's not qualified to make evolutionary statements any more than I am. Less so, because he's a YEC and that is comprehensively disproven by science.
