Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

This is only correct if human intelligence was aquired through HGT, which, it was not.

And once you prove that, we will move on.

Okay, then lets discard HGT for the moment, and discuss your evidence for genetic mutation strictly.

Mutation of existing information, be it positive or negative is a good example of microevolution. But you have not shown that these mutations resulted in new, or more complex DNA sequences.

No, I said genetic loss can result in useless information.

In a way, you are right. But the origin of the 'new' information is from existing information, for which no source has been explained.

I don't think you even have a penny in your pocket. You have shown that HGT COULD explain how mutation is passed around, though this is questionable ...

You have not explained how new chemical arrangements come about by random chance, or mutation.

Mutation is the damage, or alteration of the genetic 'message' carried by any gene. This does not offer evidence for the origin of new chemical arrangements.

They are also not new. They are changed.

If I buy a car, then sell it without tires, is the car new? No, it is missing a specific part for it to function properly.

First, you have not shown that.

Second, though a specific sequence of nucleotides can be damaged, the gene as a whole can still function.

Now wait. You claim that mutation is the source for new information. This is your claim. Now you need to support your claim with evidence.

I can watch someone hotwire a car, does not mean that is the correct way for the engine to start, nor does it explain of everyone starts their cars this way, which they do not, since this is harmful to the car, damaging wiring components.

Nothing. Other than you still refuse to give evidence to support mutational evolution.

Explain what mutational processes can account for new information.

But not that these new arrangements are useful, nor that this information was not from a previous source.

What you have not argued is that any useful function comes about from these mutations.

If you are talking about Micro evolution, you win. But new functional genetic information would be required for macro evolution.

Loss or damage of any specific nucleotide sequences.

You have given me sources for genetic change. In one case, you offered an experiment that was repeated with similar results. This is NOT evidence for random mutation, since the odds of any organism mutating similar to another, if in separate conditions is a huge impossibility.

No one is claiming that all mutations are harmful, and anyone that does is silly. But the genetic material is due to a loss of information.

I read back in your posts (to some extent, I don't have all day), the experiment performed by different labs that yielded similar results is out. If random mutation is your claim for the origin of new genetic information, any such experiment would NOT yield the same results, unless the organisms themselves caused the change, in order to survive in harmful conditions of some kind. Random mutation should not be repeatable, since it is RANDOM.

If random mutation is your claim for the origin of new genetic information, any such experiment would NOT yield the same results, unless the organisms themselves caused the change, in order to survive in harmful conditions of some kind.

I see no responses to this, Percy ...

Continental uplifting does NOT occur in Egypt. If uplifting does not occur, sea shells should not be found in the desert.

My question is: Does this mean the authors are saying that natural selection was not the cause of the evolution of the eukaryotic cell from the prokaryotic cell?

And if true what effect does that have for The Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory of gradual descent by random mutution and natural selection?

I did but my understanding of that article is that the theory has not been fully accepted.

"Basicially the problem is that a primitive bacteria cannot evolve mitochondria by 'jugglilng its genes'. It would require that one of these primitive bacteria absorb and adapt by swallowing or absorbing an entirely new cell. On earth this has never been observed happening with prokaryotic cells. However eukaryotic cells indeed have been observed to do this. For a prokaryotic cell to transform to a eukaryotic cell it would have to do things that seem to only happen in eukaroytic cells"What does he mean by that statement?

I understand this to mean that the TRANSITION TO COMPLEX LIFE was a unique event that did not rely on natural selection.

Even if I was the best authority on earth on evolution, and knew more than the most ardent scientific evolutionist, I would still not find evolution to be true.

I think it's natural that if one lives with the Indians one becomes an Indian.But this relates to no true Scotsman putting sugar on his porridge.Example; "No true scientist is a creationist".Well, lots of people have been scientists and have known much more than any of us about evolutin, yet have come to a realization of a designer.The facts arent evolutionary facts, unless you decide that all evidence is evidence of evolution. It's circular, like saying; Oh how do we know abiogenesis is true? cause we're here! We're here therefore abiogenesis must be true.Anyway, my own search has led me to value cleverness over general knowledge. Anyone can regurgitate what a textbook says, but I find that clever thinking brings satisfaction in detecting the correctness.If you increase your understanding of reasoning, you'll begin to realize that all that matters is the soundness of a claim. Not who made it, or what he knows or doesn't know or how much mikey does know or how insane he is.Essentially, all that matters is how sound, logically, an argument is. This also applies to evolution.The evidence for evolution is a build up of information based on a conditional implication, used for the reasons of establishing falsification and confirmation, via logic. AT NO TIME whatsoever is there any suggestion that a theory should be believed or accepted, because induction is astoundingly WEAK evidence. (Example, if you pick out a million red balls for red ball theory, merely O N E green ball will refute the theory because of the power of the tollens)Example;If evolution is true THEN we should find transitional species preserved in the pre-cambrian.The tollens is falsification evidence thus;If they are not there, then evolution is false.Now what happens is that you can only argue ad hoc as to why evolution is true. Therefore punctuated equilibria was taken up by many IN REGARD to the evidence AGAINST evolution.This is my eternal frustration - that nobody at EvC actually knows what "evidence" means.Science by no means would call me willfully ignorant for not accepting a theory - it would actually call me "hyper-scientific". But the PEOPLE call me something else.Why is that? Is it logic or science that compels them? It is neither!

There are over 200 geochronometers that suggest a young earth.Some of them are;The amount of mud at the mouth of major rivers
Light not being a constant
The amount of dust on the moon
Satelites that should have expired
Polystrate fossils
Examples of rapid layers being created in days (Mt St Helens)I won't go into it all, but it's nothing to do with scientific prowess. Also, potassium argon dating gave rocks found at new volcanoes dates of millions of years.

Einstein's proposal that if light were not a constant ...

Got anything to say about the info, rather than mike?