Talk:Question Evolution! - CMI's Rebuttals to Responses to Questions 4 through 8

q4/a1 Brainstorm

• There is evidence of new structures such as the evidence for feather development and the evolution of the eye. CMI merely asserts that there is none.
• Creationists do not rigorously define or measure information. Mutation is a source of new DNA sequences, which they do not address in this seciton.
• Natural selection is a part of evolution. Why are scientists prevented from talking about part of the theory.
• Info on the Lewin quote is [1] here. I'd prefer to see the article. Ironic, given that they say the don't quote mine. Lewin's quote continues, "What is not clear, however, is whether macroevolution is totally decoupled from microevolution: the two can probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap." [2] sterile^talk 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• It's reasonable to assume that when they say "an increase in information" they mean new biochemical pathways or organ systems. Of course, if this is their definition of information, then evolution can explain a large number of species, from bonobos to giraffes, without the slightest increase in "information".
• Creationists often shift the goalposts as to what they mean by "micro -" and "macro -" evolution. First the barrier is between species. When evidence of evolution between species is presented they switch to the more nebulous "kinds". Finally, creationists often insist that we give them an example of a centipede evolving into a giraffe (or something of that nature). The last of these things is, of course, not predicted by evolution. The Mad World (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
• Also, have we taken a look at the context of the two quotes given? The Mad World (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

q4/a2 Brainstorm

• It seems ironic that they insist on natural selection not being a big deal, and then proceed to ignore it in this paragraph.
• Sanford's genetic entropy has been debunked, c.f., [3]. (Better links needed) sterile^talk 18:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• CMI incorrectly believes that all of these "billions of mutations" became fixated in the population. Genetic drift and selection renders this practically impossible.

q5/a3

You can't believe that natural selection exists and that evolution is soley chance (or a lucky accident). Yes, it's a noisy system. But there is a deterministic element to natural selection. Until CMI addresses this, it's emtpy rhetoric.sterile^talk 19:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Do you really need sources for each response? I feel like I can respond to some of these just by using common sense.

Factual claims require sources in my opinion. Non-obvious conclusions and thought processes should too. But we're not WP so go nuts if you think it's appropriate not to cite. 15:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

q7/a1

All you'd need for multicellular life is a mutation which makes it so cell division doesn't completely separate the two cells. This mutation doesn't even require an 'increase in information', so the creationist can't argue that.

It seems many of the rebuttal responses are either erased or incomplete

Hello, just wondering: why are many of the response spaces either empty or contain incomplete sentences (like the dolphins and arsenic lake thing) ? I hope it's not the work of some troll erasing things... Imadmagician (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)