The Dawkins question, new "information" in the genome?

There is an underlying confusion here. The nature of fossils (just bones) is such that having all of them wouldn't make the theory 'certain'.The theory is "how" -- that is by what mechanisms life developed over time. If by "certain" you mean we know each mutation and selection event then of course it will never be certain. The bones won't show that.However, there are way more than enough bones to be as close as we can get to "certain" that evolution (not the mechanism but the fact that life has changed ) has happened (by whatever mechanism). Philosophically science is supposed to remain open to change by continuous checking. However, that life has evolved (by some means) is, in any reasonable sense, absolutely certain.Meanwhile the theory of evolution (what that mechanism was ) is the only viable contender for an explanation that we have.We are way beyond fossils in our checking and developing of our understanding of that. While fossils would be helpful in showing the details of the actual steps taken they would not, I think, help with understanding the details of the theory at all.What we need now is an understanding of gene expression, genotype changes and biochemical pathways.The theory says mutations supply the raw material and that selection drives the process in non random ways. We have a lot of understanding of how that works at a high level.What we will learn in the future is exactly how gene changes can arise (not just "mutation") and how particular ones may be expressed and selected. That is there the theory will be strengthened.

The topic here is new information.What does your post 49 have to do with that?What do you define "new" and "information" to be?Isn't your statment simply saying that large changes require longer times?

That is exactly the question that I have not, myself, seen in literature of those who want a supernatural solution.The "odds" of a specific sequence do get rather low pretty quickly. But no one knows how many of your possible sequences would do. Untill we understand that the "odds" are simply unknown.It is very clear that many, many slightly different sequences can be used in various biochemical processes. But untill you say how many you can't calculate the odds of a "working one" arising by whatever means.

You missed my main point and question.How do you define "information" and what is "new"?Untill we have that nailed down then we can't continue a rational discussion.

So show me where this has been done. You, in fact, don't know enough about this to be able to make such a statement.You'll have to supply the same kind of excruciating detail that regular papers are required to supply. Including all the possible counter arguments to what you are suggesting.

Well, not really. What is required, in some cases, in GADS of attempts. How many organisms are alive at any one time on the planet? If we stick to multicellular it probably (I didn't count 'em) amounts to trillions. If we include microbes the number is BIG. Each of those reproduces and each time there is another roll of the dice. Now to get enough attempts to produce results it may still require rather a lot of time but when generations are hours, days, weeks and maybe a year long a million years is a long time.As for the cambrian, there are a lot of different body plans that appear in the fossil record over are geologicaly short time. However that short time represents (at a guess) a few 100 million generations (we don't know the life span of those critters) each with GADS of creatures in them.In addition, there were things liveing and evolving before the Cambrian explosion. The very skimpy fossil record doesn't help trace the lineages back much though.Now look at the creatures that are preserved in the Burgess shale. While experts have managed to tease out the details and the differences they are not exactly a collection of gorillas, gyre falcons, groupers and the like are they? The diferentiation has just started.You are reading too much into the popular picture of the Cambrian without knowing enough about the details.Before you make decisions on your personal incredulity and lack of knowledge maybe you should look more closely at the information that is available. If you take a 5 or 10 million year time period where there is more of a fossil record you see very significant changes. The fact is that pretty big changes can happen in a short time.