Question on arbitrary lines

Not purely random means. Random mutation combined with natural selection. There's nothing random about selection. The randomness of mutation only produces variation. Selection acts on that variation to keep what works and discard what doesn't. Why does it have to happen all at once?Consider this. You've granted that a single gene can suffer a copying error that makes it do something else. You've also granted that a gene could be duplicated so that mutliple copies appear on the chromosome.Neither of these constitute "new information" to you, for whatever reason.But if you put them together, you get a situation like this: Starting out with some random gene, like:GGACTTAACNow, a copying error leads to it's duplication:GGACTTAAC GGACCTAACAnd subesquent mutations alter the copy:GGACTTAAC GCACCTAAG(Now, if the new gene adds some kind of benefit - perhaps it codes for a protien that will allow it to metabolize pesticide, for instance - it will spread through the population. If it doesn't, we'll probably call it a pseudogene. We have observed both of these conditions in the lab through these processes.)A whole new gene via processes that, to you, add no "new information" to the genome. Ergo, your assertations that these process don't add "new" information are clearly wrong.Mutation is all you need to add new information because information can be generated at random so long as it is filtered through natural selection. This has been modeled extensively.You can claim that "molecues to man" (I hate that term) is prevented by some kind of theoretical barrier, but no evidence of that barrier has ever been found. The evidence is pretty clear that random mutation + natural selection is sufficient to account for all of life's complexity.

Small changes can be beneficial. Better yet, useless or unexpressed genes tend to persist in the gene pool, so long as they don't have a negative impact on the survivability of the individual. Not at all. You can do it, bit by bit, piece by piece, mutation by mutation. You don't need it all at once.Biological functions don't just appear fully-formed. There's no function, capability, body form, ability, whatever present in any organism you can think of where I can't find a simpler or less advanced version in some other organism. Try me. I dare you. Come up with a function that would have had to arisen instantly, requiring more than just a few mutuations per individual. Well, let me ask you this: What's the least advanced organism that you believe could evolve into man? Do you believe in "Australopithicus to man"? "chimp to man"? "Mammal to man?" "Bacteria to man"? Where do you draw the line? Or do you argue that nothing could ever evolve into man? I take issue because it's a highly homo-centric statement. I beieve in "molecules to all life on earth" evolution. I don't believe that humans represent anything particularly special, in terms of the diversity of life on earth.Trying to determine the probability after the fact is an excercise in futility. What are the odds that things would happen exactly the way they did? Who knows? It's impossible to tell from one instance. Even if you grant an astronomically low (but non-zero) probability, you still grant the possibility it could occur. Unless you're arguing that it could NEVER happen? Well, of course there wouldn't be. Evidence doesn't exist for things that don't exist. You can't have evidence of non-existence. What you can prove is that the existence of a phenomenon would be contradictory to the evidence that does exist, and this has been shown for your inter-species barrier.Clearly you need to investiate what evidence can and cannot prove. Because some people are so motivated by ideology that they deny the findings of science - and expect others to deny them as well. Furthermore as ID theorists push into our schools, I'm trying to fight them to assure that my future children can get a proper science education free of ridiculous religious dogma.That, and people like a good argument. I like hanging out here because it keeps my writing sharp. It's like fencing - you fight when you can, so that when you have to fight, you're in good form.

Then you see it wrong. In a lot of cases, a simple point mutation, frame shift deletion, or duplication of codons can allow an organism to develop new limbs, metabolize new substances, or survive in new environments.It should be noted that the vast majority of mutations have no effect on the organism's survival, or even an effect on the organism's morphology. You and I have somewhere between 5 and 50 new mutations that we didn't inherit from our parents. Not so. Mosquitos can digest a common pesticide after two mutations (a copy error and one or more duplications). A mutation to the GLO pseudogene could render humans the ability to manufacture their own Vitamin C. Maybe you don't understand your own point. Your point is that only ID can explain how novel structures arise in organisms. Our point is that novel structures don't really exist, so ID isn't needed. Why would the ToE predict a half a lung? Maybe you mean a simple lung. That could be as simple as an improved gill - the gill could be improved by adding a sac to store water or air, allowing the organism to explore new environments for food.Flippers are merely fused hands or paws. Half a flipper is a webbed hand, perhaps? In an aqautic environment - or even a swampy one - a webbed hand is a benefit to locomotion, don't you agree?Arguably you have half-claws on the ends of your fingers. Fingernails are very useful, for instance if you've ever had to open soda cans. Or pick nits off your scalp, like a gorilla.

If you don't intend to respond to any of the reasonable questions I've put to you, you are wasting my time. Good riddance. I don't put faith in anything. I think the evidence points towards an inflationary universe.What caused the big bang? I dunno. I can't know. That question may not even have meaning since it's not clear that causality has meaning outside of linear time. These are things that I can't use science to prove, only speculate.On the other hand, science can speak to explanations for the diversity of life on earth. I see no reason to complicate things with some intelligent designer simply because your personal incredulity doesn't allow for natural explanations of life. How do you calculate the "dds of our universe" when our universe is the only one we can observe? You can't specify odds from a sample size of one. For all you know our kind of universe - with all it's so-called "fine tuning" - is the only kind that can exist. Prove me wrong. Like what, exactly? How do you tell the difference between something we can't explain naturally yet and something we'll never be able to explain naturally? The one thing unique about humans is our ability to form very complex sounds, as well as huge amounts of brain devoted to language processing. It's my personal belief that our conciousness, social strutcture, moral sense, and even religious beliefs can be explained as natural results of high-order, symbolic language. I have only a little evidence, and I'm certainly not a cognitive scientist, but I believe it to be true. Maybe I'd be honest, and tell them "Maybe there's a heaven, where your mother is now, and where we'll see her again. But I don't know that for sure." Or maybe "Bad people killed your mom even though she didn't do anything." Or maybe I'd lie and tell them fairy tales to make them feel better. I dunno. I hope I never have to find out. So it's better to lie to ourselves to make us feel better? I might lie to somebody I didn't think could handle the truth, but I won't lie to myself. No matter how much you might hate a universe with no sky-man to watch out for you, that doesn't change the fact that it might be true.Anyway, atheism is ultimately a very empowering worldview. It teaches us that the responsibility for making this world a better place for everybody is on our own collective shoulders, not some all-powerful god who's going to swoop down to fix things for us.

Uh, as an atheist I think I'm qualified to say what atheism does and does not promote. Also associations such as American Atheists take a differing view than you as well.I wouldn't claim to tell you what you're beliefs are; why would you attempt to do the same for me?

I don't doubt the veracity of your experiment, but I had a question. I'm no microbiologist so some of the terms confuse me.What exactly is a "lawn" in this context? I think I understand but I'd like to be sure.