"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"

I can't speak to what the original point may have been, but it strikes me as a bit hypocritical that evolutionists mock creationists for their dogma, when evolutionists follow their views just as dogmatically even though they change on a whim as evidenced by the many shifts in evolutionary thought. I do understand science is learning and that it takes trial and error at times to achieve this learning, but I don't understand how evolutionists can maintain that this is all fact when they themselves will shift their theories from year to year.

To me, the discussion of mutations seems a little pointless. The problem with Darwinism is that it requires mutations that result in information gains. Almost all observed mutations, whether they are "beneficial" or otherwise, result in a loss of information. In other words, they are going in the opposite direction of what would be required by macroevolution.Even Richard Dawkins, when pressed with this issue, had no viable response:
Skeptics Choke on Frog | Answers in Genesis

See nylon digesting bacteria indeed.It is likely that once the actual process is better understood, we'll see this as the product of a designed mechanism rather than that of a chance mutation. Not unlike the way vertebrates create antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation.I side with those who suggest this is the work of an irreducibly complex molecular system. It's certainly not an area of science that is settled and without controversy...is that the best evidence of mutations in the right-direction?

Are mutations not a part of modern cell biology?I'm missing how this isn't related to the topic at hand. My point in stating that I can't speak to the original intent, was to not speak for the person to which the comment I was replying to was intended.

Is there an example of a known natural process that will increase the information content?

I agree Jazzns...the proof is still out on this one. I won't assert that I know what the outcome will be.I'd make the point though that I wouldn't expect anyone to accept your belief system without evidence either.Since macro-evolution requires mutations that increase organized complexity at every step of the process, I find it supportive of my theory that only 2 or 3 obscure, and debated, examples can be cited.

Fair enough...new topic submitted. And I'm guessing from the responses that there are at least a few people eager to jump on me for this one.