Evolution falsifies God/s?

And you still have not defined what you mean by "information" so that it can be measured, quantified and compared. At a basic level one can say that the only "information" involved is the molecules A C G and T, the rest is all arrangement. Net gain in what? Until you define "information" in a way that can measured, quantified and compared your statement is meaningless.Mutations can copy whole sections, and copied sections can be changed by new mutations -- you now presumably have the old "information" still present and different "information" in the modified section "beside" it ... which is not "old" so it must be "new" yes?Curiously, whether or not this is "new" information, this is the way evolution works, so either "information" has been increased or the concept of "information" is irrelevant to evolution. Perhaps it is just the way real life works. Remember ... ... this is how evolution works.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : splng

Actually, some types of mutations provide duplication of existing information. When a later mutation happens in the duplicated section, then you have new information created next to the old.But even assuming your original statement was correct, since most animals reproduce sexually, adding different information to any mating partner in a population increases the genetic diversity in the population of animals. For example if a mutation gives an animal a white coat, what does it matter for that animal that it has given up the gene for brown coats? And of course the ability of the population to produce white coats is not lost.Apparently you have not thought through what a mutation actually is or the consequences of mutations.

err don't you mean brown?And the population has gained the option of white or brown coats being beneficial in different ecologies, increasing the total diversity of species and habitat.An actual example of this occurring in real life is provided by the tan pocket mice in the southwest, where two different mutations caused black fur, and this enabled the black mice to inhabit the (black) lava beds ...Curiously evolution doesn't care how much "information" is involved, just in whether or not the mutation is beneficial within an ecology.Edited by RAZD, : example

This is a very revealing question. It suggests that the reason you believe in a god is because you believe there are things about the natural world that science hasn't yet explained. This is what is referred to as the god of the gaps.To answer your question, I wouldn't still cling to atheism, I would embrace it whole-heartedly. You see, I'm not an atheist because I think science has all the answers. Even if science had no answers at all, I would still be an atheist because religion has no answers and no evidence to support it. I would still be an atheist because the answer to questions about the natural world that religion provides is "God did it." Not only is this not an answer, it effectively ends the search for real answers.I'm an atheist for the same reason you don't believe in flying elephants and talking, anthropomorphic mice, assuming you don't believe in those things. If you do, I'm afraid I can't help you.

So I could slap some random code down into a compiler and out would come a fully functional program? Then to publish a new version, all I'd need to do is add some more random code? Well I've been doing it all wrong then. ; )Yes it's the arrangement of the code, in an ever growing genome, that's vital for the ToE not to blow.

It increases the genetic load, and since most mutations are not beneficial, that can only lead to a genetic extinction.

Ok, so you'd remain an atheist, even without Darwinian evolution? I can respect that, if for no other reason then it's consistent. Sort of like how I'd remain a Christian because of my faith. What you're effectively saying though, is you'll maintain your non-belief as a type of a belief, in and of itself.So atheism is in fact a belief system, would you agree with that?

As I (and many others) see it, atheism is both a lack of belief system and a belief system.1) Lack of belief system (soft atheism) - I have no belief in God. This is a personal appraisal and a fact.2) Belief system (hard atheism) - I believe there is no God. I may be wrong, but it is my belief.MooseAdded by edit:There is a (sort of?) parallel relationship in theism.1) Belief system ("soft theism") - You believe in God. This is a personal appraisal and (I presume) a fact.2) Belief system ("hard theism") - You believe there is a God. You may be wrong, but that is your belief.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

Could I once more draw your attention to the fact that this is the exact opposite of what we see in the real world?When you find yourself proving the impossibility in principle of what readily happens in practice, this is nature's way of telling you that your principles are flawed.

I think calling it a system implies a degree of complexity which it does not possess. Would you say that not believing that a purple elephant is eating my nasturtiums is a system of thought? --- or just a thought?

Actually this is all that we see in the real world. Genetic disorders are on the rise. Do you have any examples where the human genome is increasing its "usefulness" (i.e. greater beneficial complexity)?

Depends...Would you create a bible based on your non-existent purple elephant?Leading atheist publishes secular Bible – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com BlogsBuild a monument to your non-existent purple elephant?Atheists unveil monument by Ten Commandments | Fox NewsHow about a temple?Alain de Botton reveals plans for 'temple to atheism' in heart of London | Atheism | The GuardianOr maybe demand equal religious protections for your belief in a non-existent purple elephant?Latest Breaking News, Headlines & Updates | National PostOr my personal favorite, would you ordain ministers in the First Church of "A-PurpleElephantism" (APE)?http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

No, but then I wouldn't do any of those things based on the non-existence of gods, either. With the exception that I do like having human rights and wouldn't want them taken away on the grounds of atheism or disbelief in purple elephants.

Only if "we" do not include any geneticists.

How about your favorite, Dr. John Sanford?