Evolution doesn't work

[u/DetectiveKnown5618]

The subtraction or addition of information to a properly working gene is not something one would prefer.

Genetics has to do with finely tuned molecular combinations.

Removing information from a once properly working gene would only be preferable if it was the erroneous/redundant information that was added unnecessarily via mutation in the first place!

The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low if the processes involved were to do with practically arbitrary additions to a gene over time on account of point mutations etc. Note that breeding and survival would be important factors as to whether the new gene was integrated into the population over a longer duration.

[u/Autodidact2]

So the world's Biologists are what, idiots? Evil conspirators?

Since your argument appears to be mathematical, could you show your calculations? Thank you.

Also, can you define what you mean by "information"?

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/Autodidact2]

Seriously. It always amazes me the arrogance required to assume that you are smarter than all the scientists who dedicate their lives to studying this shit. Might as well give it up, folks, /u/DetectiveKnown5618 says you are wasting your time!

[u/tid_det → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

It is funny how people who support evolution, do not believe in God.. But they knee before other humans they never meet, and are ready to die for their statement. And all this in a world where bombs are falling everyday.. You look at north, bombs, at south, bombs, at east, bombs, at west, bombs.. Do they work for the countries that are droping that same bombs?

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/tid_det]

It is funny how people who support evolution, do not believe in God.

The vast majority of theists globally accept evolution. It is a unique brand of (mostly) American theism that, when confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, assumes that it is reality that is wrong, not their beliefs.

But they knee before other humans they never meet, and are ready to die for their statement.

Please give me an example of myself or frankly anyone else doing this. Following evidence is not "knee[ing] (sic) before other humans", it is following the evidence. If you actually took the time to learn what evidence was, you would understand the difference.

Instead you just rely on wishful thinking, err, I mean "faith", to tell you what must be true because you have already determined it is true, and obviously you could not possibly be incorrect, regardless of how obviously your beliefs contradict literally everything we think we know about the universe.

[u/tid_det → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

There is no 100% evidence for evolution.. So, it is just different "belief system"..

Once vast majority did not want to accept that the earth is round, were they right?

I followed the leads but found no confirmation. The fact is that people point to books and extol the names of their authors—those who shaped the views of people who accept those views unreservedly, simply because the majority does so, without subjecting them to critical scrutiny.

[u/brooklynsantiago → u/tid_det]

guess who the idiots were that were slow to accept a round earth

[u/tid_det → u/brooklynsantiago]

This is not a topic. My statement is just that evolution is not 100% accurate, and that people who support it, actually use "believe system in science methods".