Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?

That really makes no logical sense. What you are trying to say is that not all lineages in a given time span are destined for increased complexity.It is only logical though, that if all life arose from the first, less-complex life, that a ascension in terms of complexity was necessary be each and every life form (except for the still existing simple celled organism..why is it still around again?)

A few small tiny changes a year would undoubtedly leave more of a transitional fossil record than we currently see...and that is accepting the few questionable examples as valid. Given the lack of fossile evidence how do you quantify these small changes?

I guess you think I meant the same one?

I don't have any dogmatic need to oppose science. I believe science where it can be verified. I have no doubt that microevolution occurs and that changes are possible in species through time. What I don't accept, at least without evidence, is that changes above the level of species can occur just because you see the changes happening at lower levels. Everything known in science dictates that a gerbil will produce a gerbil. Until you can produce evidence of mutations that lead to changes above the species level, you are relying on faith to hold that position.I realize that I confused hemoglobin C with S in the previous post....I'm sure you'll understand if it takes me a while to read all 50 responses I get to each posting.

I would mainly agree with your statement. As a creationist, I understand that complex doesn't mean more evolved and that there is not necessarily a "better" in terms of evolutionary development. The issue being addressed, as you mention, is that of coming from simple (bacteria) to complex (human). The hypothesis is that random mutations can't fully provide that process.You say that it should be the responsibility of creationists to better define "information" in this context....and since we are introducing the term I will cede that point on it's face. However, the problem is that the creationists are essentially just trying to get you to quantify how these mutations can lead to changes above the level of species...which macroevolution requires. Following our established line of logic, it should be up to evolutionists to provide this proof....they, after all, are the ones asserting that it happens.

I grasp all of these concepts. When I said "produce" I meant via mutations over "howevermany" years, not reproductively. It's fairly obvious that a gerbil won't give birth to a non-gerbil....but thanks for the confidence in my rationality.I also realize that speciation is the source of new species. However, you're being dishonest if you suggest that mutations aren't the means of acheiving the change required. Regardless...I asked for evidence of changes ABOVE the species level, not at the species level.The point is there is no observable evidence that suggests that speciation will ever lead to a new Order, for instance. And unless the first simple organisms were primates...this would eventually be required.

You admitted that faith was required in your answer."we can safely say that the evidence does suggest, quite strongly"This may be faith based on reason, but it is still faith when absent empirical proof. I understand your assumptions. Because you are a naturalist and we have no other natural mechanism that produces heritable variation, and you assume heritable variation must be the means of getting to our current forms of life, then obviously it happened. No matter how scientific you make it sound...it's still an assumption based on logic...not fact.

Almost. I'm suggesting that if the evidence infers a conclusion that isn't verifiable, you rely on faith. Your example of taking it on faith that your computer is on your desk is apples to oranges. You can easily prove that your computer is on your desk by reaching out and touching it. However, it's not possible to prove that changes ABOVE the level of species can occur. Evolutionists would be the first to admit this since they take such great time to occur.And I'm actually not even suggesting that your perspective is illogical. If only natural means exist, then what you suggest must be fact. However, if supernatural means exist then there are another set of assumptions that are equally as logical.The question, then, is....which is more logical to assume supernaturalism or naturalism. Since every effect must have a cause...I would say supernaturalism.If you want to work up a topic...go ahead. I'll drop in as I have time available.This message has been edited by Garrett, 02-17-2006 10:27 AM

I think we're hitting on the main problem most "common" americans have with the theory of evolution. Looking at past polls (I don't have the exact numbers right now), most americans are still skeptical.I know that most of the scientific community views these people as dumb rednecks or whathaveyou, but the fact is the majority of them realize that the overarching concept of change ABOVE the level of species is not verifiable.Until evolutionists are willing to admit that they can't prove these level of changes and that they reach the conclusions based on logical assumptions, the community as a whole will be skeptical of their intentions. Most evolutionists, including many in this thread, assert that evolution is a fact hoping the average person doesn't know otherwise, or not realizing themselves that micro doesn't prove macro.

What you did verify is your smug attitude towards anyone with different views. Gotta love that evolutionary mindset.

More people who just knew they weren't 'related to no monkey' (insulting US southern slur the creation of Wounded King, not I):Blaise Pascal
Issac Newton
Michael Faraday
James Joule
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
Joseph Lister
George Washington Carver

I didn't ask for evidence of MUTATIONS above the species level...but evidence for CHANGES above the species level. The only evidence would be intermediate forms. The few debateable examples don't seem to be numerous enough. In other words, how do you account for the seeming stasis in the fossil record?

To answer the problem of transistional forms with the response that groupings are determined by scientists and are therefore of no consequence, is a red herring. Regardless of the classification system used, the biological features of an organism would change, going through transitional periods, between different classifications. No evidence exists for the vast majority of these transitions....rather they are accepted a priori based on a preconceived worldview dedicated to uniformitarianism and naturalism.

I would point out that in your example an outside intelligence was needed to determine which parts were excess and which were meaningful. It seems to support the fact that random changes don't bring new meaning. If they did, nobody would be too impressed with that mountain in South Dakota. Just give it enough time and chance will remove what isn't a part of a president.

I have no problem with the concept that randomness can lead to an illogical result. But I've yet to see anything logical come about randomly.Your right, science uses evidence. How then, can science suggest that all life arose without cause when all scientific evidence points to the fact that all causes must have an effect? You say you demand evidence, but why don't you have the same standards when someone suggests that our entire galaxy exploded from nothing, with no known cause.We both have the same evidence, we just interpret it differently.