Problems with Mutation and the Evolution of the Sexes

that I'd like to point out is if by chance, something can come into existance from nothing, than how less of a chance does someone of intelligence need to create it?I mean, if a simple cell can all of a sudden appear out of a blob of goo, then shouldn't we or some very intelligent scientist somewhere be able to create a living cell out of nothing but let's say, a blob of goo??Don't come back at me with the amino acids are the building block and we've managed to create that arguement...it isn't actual life and doesn't hold water.

"Specifically, we self-replicate imperfectly. As did the first forms of life. It's these imperfections in the copying process that allow mutation and evolution to occur - otherwise all life would simply be cloned duplicates of the first life form."Ok, I read up to this part and I had to laugh. Sorry, but which part of this sentence makes sense to you??We self-replicate imperfectly, culminating in a perfect replication??But then again, we are no longer a replication of the original being but a completely different mass of tissue with functions that just happened to perfectly form.Do you guys ever seriously believe what you say?? Or do you even bother to read what you say??

//Have a look at the sex-lifes of ciliates such as Paramecium. Is that sexual reproduction? Are they hermaphrodites? Do they have sexes? Note that they are single-celled.
Now consider the F plasmid in E. Coli ...//Alright, so why were they left behind in the wake of mass evolution?

physical features such as hair colour, body type, sex, features all inherited by the parent. A mutation as you refer to it is a change from the parental genetic inheritance forming another characteristic not normal. By what we know today and have observed of genetic mutations is that in the majority of cases, the mutation causes a loss of genetic information that is usually detrimental to the individual and any consecutive replications of that genetic information passed down to offspring, usually starts a downward spiral, not an upward spiral.Definition of mutation:American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This mu·ta·tion Audio Help (my-t'shn) Pronunciation Key
n.
The act or process of being altered or changed.
An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
Genetics
A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
A mutant.

Not according the the laws of entrophy and thermodynamics

So our guts would have had to have been there since the beginning for them to even have come to existance and flourish. What would the bacteria have been when in the state of evolution had not all the genetic information already been there? What would have been it's simplest form in the beginning allowing it to function, thrive and reproduce had it also had to evolve from lesser ingredients?

the problem is, if we are the most perfect form of the evolutionary process, having the voluntary and involuntary mechanisms and consciousness and intelligence that we didn't have in the beginning, how can consecutive imperfections lead to such perfection as we now have (being as perfect as perfect can be at this present time).When considering the law of entrophy, this simply is absurd to believe such a thing!!

The law of entropy suggests a decay of things over time and the law of thermodynamics speaks of a transfer of energy from one form to another.We see entropy all around us, everything decays overtime.The law of thermodynamics suggest that you cannot transfer more energy than is produced or remaining in the subject transfering that energy.Therefore, to transfer enough energy to something for it to create something requiring more energy than the thing transfering can produce is unlikely. A cell can only produce enough energy to produce another cell. Genetic information in that cell is what determines what kind of cell it will create. A liver cell will produce other liver cells, brain cells produce other brain cells. flagellum produce other flagellum, bacteria produce other bacteria, virus' produce other virus'. Nothing has changed under the sun. Whenever a mutation in a human or animal occurs, it's ALWAYS a loss of genetic information.As far as the nylon eating bacteria is concerned, no new information was added, only a change in the current information. Whether it was beneficial to it or not is irrelevant. Had it mysteriously grown another eye or wings or a second stomach would prove new genetic information.Virus' swap information all the time. It does not add new information, it is just a change in the current information in the DNA. Just as humans can have a change in information that allows them to become immune to certain virus' and diseases, so also the virus can change current information to allow for the same ability. When you see a virus become a parasite, then you will see perhaps an addition of new information not previously there.

My point being we are at the current apex of our genetic informational abilities. Whether in the future sometime we acquire new genetic information making us better than we are now, remains to be seen. But by evolutionist argumentation, we came from something lesser than what we are now. There's no indication that evolutionists believe otherwise, otherwise we would have been more perfect in the past, losing genetic information to become lesser than what we once were. Which would prove the process of entropy and not evolution and "survival of the fittest", unless the fittest are the lesser beings.But then again, it seems the more we learn and proclaim to be wise, the dumber we become.

Not really. The single cell can only develop into that which it's genetic information dictates. Any variation in that information is usually a loss or corruption thereof which leads to a mutation from the original. Usually, this mutation would be a rare event and would result in the ensuing organism to retain that information in a recessive gene making it unlikely to reproduce that same genetic malfunction in consecutive offspring. That genetic information will always be passed down to offspring but as a recessive gene may only show itself after several attempts of reproduction and sometimes may take generations for that information to manifest itself once again. Very rarely, do we see that genetic information become the dominating trait.

I find it all to be relative.Please excuse the stray off topic but in order to understand one, we must understand the foundation.