Evolution: theory for the weak-minded?

[QUOTE][b]I am perfectly aware that it is possible to happen, but I just don't think you're ever going to see a case in nature, in which a mutation adds complexity to the mutant.[/QUOTE][/b]Out of all the mutations occuring, and considering that natural selection will proliferate a useful mutation, how can you sustain that argument? Also I should point out that what you have here is an argument from personal incredulity, which is a logical fallacy. You can state that you don't accept the possibility of evolution and then give us no reasons, but it is not helping your case. While I applaud your intellectual honesty and forthright admission of the possibility of beneficial mutations (probably puts you ahead of 90% of the other YECs out there), I see you refusing the obvious and logical conclusion on apparently baseless grounds at the last possible minute before conceding evolution. [QUOTE][b]But, the information was already present for the recipient to gain.[/QUOTE][/b]Are you stating that nylon-digesting bacteria are living in nature? Can you find one? Also, how was it replicated under the aseptic conditions of the lab if the function was obtained through horizontal gene transfer? There would have to already be a nylon-digesting bacterial population present in the culture in which the transformation occured for you to result to horizontal transfer to account for the "information" addition. Because I thought that argument was just speculation, and that it was *assumed* that some bacteria were already carrying it and that it was transferred. This is consistent with AiG's mode of operation, see their Statement of Faith, Part F, "No evidence of any kind...." [QUOTE][b]Since there is no clear-cut evidence for uphill, than things must be swading towards the worse.[/QUOTE][/b]This is another logical fallacy, or more accurately, a pair of related fallacies. You've taken a range of possibilities and shoveled us into only two possibilities, that we can go "uphill" or "downhill," and you omit the possibility that we are remaining level (fallacy one). You state that there is "no clear-cut evidence" (question begging - fallacy two). My other problem with the "uphill-downhill" analogy is that "up" and "down" here are subjective. Evolution works towards "fitness", essentially survivability and fertility. Adaptations which lead to enhanced survivability and fertility cannot be easily quantified until they come about, there is a seemingly infinite number of improvements that can come about to cause an organism to produce more offspring or have a reduced mortality rate, and how well each works is determined by a seemingly
infinite number of environmental variables, all of which are in flux.An adaptation which helps one population can harm another in a different set of circumstances and because organisms are each adapted differently to different environments, to call one direction "up" relative another is unfair. Bacteria cannot build airplanes but some of them can live in concentrated H₂SO₄. A human cannot live in that environment and if they were to suddenly start evolving towards being mammals they would become extinct before they got very far. That's another problem with the analogy, to say that evolution can go "uphill" or "downhill" implies that evolution has a goal. One can argue that a evolution is a teleological process driven by God but evolution itself, as a process we can observe, simply moves to whatever proliferates the organism's genome. "It" is not "trying" to work towards any sort of "goal" other than producing more offspring that are healthier than itself.Enough for now.

[QUOTE][b]Except...we havn't seen anything like this. We should be observing new complexity/information mutations millions of times for evolution to be any credible at all, yet, we havn't even seen one example.[/QUOTE][/b]We cannot provide examples until you will tell us what you consider to be an increase of information. I propose that a new function resulting from a mutation is an increase in information. Do you agree? Also I have not seen "information" defined quantitatively by a Creationist, it is another vague term they hurl around without definition and redefine whenever it suits them. Perhaps you can enlighten us and provide a solid definition of information, and what constitutes an increase in information, in no uncertain terms that we can then clobber you with it and you will have no choice but to admit defeat. Yes, I do have some things in mind, but you're going to have to define the argument first.

I wrote a lengthy reply giving reasons why your criticisms of K/Ar were flawed but the post was eaten.I will simply give you my first point: if samples are absorbing argon from the environment, why are they only being trapped in the volcanics? The sedimentary rocks found amongst the volcanics should have the same concentrations of Ar, but don't. And remember, Ar is an inert gas. For this reason it isn't chemically bonding to minerals in volcanics, it is simply being trapped there when lava solidifies. Therefore there is no reason why volcanics should have a higher concentration of Ar than their surroundings, other than an internal source.