usfan
Well-Known Member
The burden of proof is on the claimant. You are the ones claiming the truth of this phenomenon, so you have to provide the evidence.
Science observes that organisms stay within their genetic parameters.. they do not flit about randomly, adding genes, traits, chromosomes, or features that are not in the original organism. This is observable reality. You are claiming something different from this reality, so you have to prove your theory with evidence, not just assert it as fact.
I can drop a rock over a bridge for thousands of times, & it will always go down.. that is observable reality. You may theorize that after enough attempts, the rock will fly up in the air, instead of down, then demand that i disprove your theory. I cannot. I can only demonstrate observable reality. The burden of proof is on you to prove the rock can fly in the air & overcome gravity, by some mysterious process. That is the same with evolution. Observable reality says that organisms stay within their genetic definitions, & can only draw upon that that has been passed down to them. You are claiming that new traits, new genes, & new chromosomes can be added, but you provide no mechanism for this, or explain HOW you can overcome the 'gravity' of the DNA, which always reproduces the organism to its parent stock.
So what will it be? More deflections? Ad hominem? Anything but science?
Science observes that organisms stay within their genetic parameters.. they do not flit about randomly, adding genes, traits, chromosomes, or features that are not in the original organism. This is observable reality. You are claiming something different from this reality, so you have to prove your theory with evidence, not just assert it as fact.
I can drop a rock over a bridge for thousands of times, & it will always go down.. that is observable reality. You may theorize that after enough attempts, the rock will fly up in the air, instead of down, then demand that i disprove your theory. I cannot. I can only demonstrate observable reality. The burden of proof is on you to prove the rock can fly in the air & overcome gravity, by some mysterious process. That is the same with evolution. Observable reality says that organisms stay within their genetic definitions, & can only draw upon that that has been passed down to them. You are claiming that new traits, new genes, & new chromosomes can be added, but you provide no mechanism for this, or explain HOW you can overcome the 'gravity' of the DNA, which always reproduces the organism to its parent stock.
So what will it be? More deflections? Ad hominem? Anything but science?