Even creationists realize their arguments are stupid, sometimes
Answers in Genesis has a page devoted to “Arguments we think creationists should NOT use“. Yes, you read that correctly!
The site then lists several arguments creationists should not use and explains why. However, some of their explanations are, of course, in error.
This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, “We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.”
Yet increases in information, no matter how you define information, have in fact been observed:
- increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
- increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
- novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
- novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
Another example from AiG:
This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind,” and involves no new genetic information.
Wow! First we have the creationists admitting that new species have in fact been observed to form! I’m amazed at this admission. However, they go on to qualify that it is within the “kind”. The problem with the concept of “kinds” is that one can continually move the boundary between “kinds”. And, of course, the genetic information bit was already covered above.
Anyhoo, it’s an interesting read.