Summations Only

Genetic diversity and allelic options are replenished by mutations that occur in every individual in every generation.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

All you have to do is compare the genome of two species. For example, you could look at the 40 million mutations that differ between the human and chimp genomes. Among those are the mutations that are responsible for the species specific features of those two lineages. If those don't qualify as mutations that add genetic information, then evolution doesn't have to produce genetic information as you define it. How is the nested hierarchy consistent with the YEC view?How is the distribution and divergence of ERVs consistent with the YEC view?How is the divergence of introns and exons consistent with the YEC view?How is the existence of hominid transitional fossils consistent with the YEC view?How is the existence of reptile to mammal transitional fossils consistent with the YEC view?How is the relationship between parent-daughter ratios of isotopes in rocks and the fossils found below them consistent with YEC?These are just a few off the top of my head, and all these questions can be answered by the theory of evolution. I have yet to see a YEC even try to approach these questions.

Tom Schneider has already done this work, and he has shown that evolutionary mechanisms do increase genetic information as it relates to Shannon's definition:

quote:

---

How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.
Evolution of biological information - PMC

---

Then how does the biology teacher explain why life falls into a nested hierarchy?How does the biology teacher explain why everything with fur also has three middle ear bones?How does the biology teacher explain why we find reptile-mammal transitional fossils but no bird-mammal transitional fossils?I think you are speaking on topics you have no knowledge of. Why do you avoid all of my posts, especially those on the first few pages of this thread? I demonstrated in multiple posts just how useful the theory is.

He would have learned lots of physics while he attained his degree in physics.

I already showed how the theory of evolution is useful in posts 4, 9, 12, 13, and 17. Perhaps you could respond to those.

Quite a lot of biology only makes sense in the light of evolution, and I have yet to see any other explanation for the history of life that makes the same sense. Would you agree?

The Wedge Document isn't propaganda. It is a memo written by the Discovery Institute for the Discovery Institute. They say themselves that ID is not science and that it is religiously motivated.

We use the theory of evolution to determine if species share a common ancestor. The nested hierarchy only makes sense in the light of common ancestry and evolution. The pattern of orthologous ERVs and their divergence only makes sense in the light of common ancestry and evolution. The correlation of molecular and morphological phylogenies only makes sense in the light of common ancestry and evolution.What we see in biology only makes sense if species share a common ancestry AND if the divergence between them, both at the physical and DNA level, occurred through the mechanisms of evolution.

Darwin arrived at common descent because of shared features between species, biogeography, and vestigial features, to name a few. Common descent was independent of natural selection.

Because they know that religiously based explanations are inferior to scientific explanations. This is why they try to make evolution look like a religion so that it shares the same flaw as creationism does.

The natural world was a much more mysterious place in the 1700's. When modern science found natural and mindless processes for much of nature it left little room for God in some peoples' eyes. There was even those who didn't like Newton because he proposed an indifferent, impersonal, and mechanistic process for the movement of planets. When you fall into the trap of believing in a God of the Gaps, that God disappears when knowledge fills those gaps.

You asked how the theory of evolution is useful in the field of biology. I did just that.Since you are so enamored with definitions, let's look at the definition for biology:"the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior. "
Biology Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com"Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, evolution, distribution, identification and taxonomy."
Biology - WikipediaBiology includes the history of species, the origin of species, and how species changed over time. The theory of evolution is very useful for figuring those things out. The entire purpose of science is to offer testable explanations for groups of facts. Producing theories is what science is all about. It's a testable explanation for a group of facts which is the entire purpose of science. It is also useful to biology because it explains the origin of giraffes. One of the purposes of biology is to explain why there are giraffes, and this explanation fills that purpose. I have been taught that theories supported by mountains of evidence are solid theories. Is this not correct?

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
http://wise.fau.edu/...es/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html Perhaps Christians should learn that myths were a common way of communicating truths in the ancient world. I challenge you to pick one of those topics and start a thread on it. I can guarantee that none of them will stand up to scrutiny.

That doesn't address what I wrote. I fully agree that biologists shouldn't speculate as to specific reasons why specific adaptations arose. That doesn't change the evidence that supports evolution and common ancestry.