[ARCHIVED] - Creation vs. Evolution

[Tiberius]

I was wrong, a species CAN change. That's not a problem with Creation. We observe it all the time. But they have never gained any information. (I know you don't like that term, but I can't explain it any other way. What I mean is, a mutation, benificial or not, cannot add anything to the DNA that wasn't already there. It can lose info, {ABC to AB}, change order, {ABC to ACB}, and maybe, I'm not sure, copy it. That wouldn't be gaining info, I don't think. SO that would be like {ABCABC or ABCACB}. But it can't be {ABCD}. do you see what I'm saying?)

Sections of DNA mean different things though. As DNA replicates, it copies across all the information stored in it. However the copying isn't perfect, and mutations occur. As you have said, mutations can be deletions of a base pair, but this doesn't "delete" information, it only changes it. I didn't want to confuse things with an example but look at it like this.

The word "Steam" has 5 letters in it, and it has a meaning in the English language. We can copy the word again and again and it will remain the same, but what happened if a deletion occurred like this: "Stem". The 'a' has gone, but no "information" has been lost. Instead, we have a new word that also has a meaning in the English language. But say another mutation occurred that switched two letter: "Setm". Now we have a new word, never before used in the English language, and it is a gain in "information".

The whole concept of "Information" is flawed in your view of Evolution because you simply don't understand how the genome works. There are only 4 acid bases in the entire genome of every DNA sequence: A, C, G, and T. You don't get mutations that suddenly add an extra acid base (ACT -> AGZ) because DNA is only composed of the 4 I've stated. The DNA sequence ACGTTA could mean something completely different in another organism, but it still has information. An "increase" in information can be obtained through any mutation (even a deletion) because it could lead to a new attribute of the organism, simply because the genome structure wasn't right.

THe E coli, as far as I can see, is just another proven example of Adaptation. It has not evolved to be better, it has actually lost some of what it had before.

It gained a new ability to absorb citrate. Please explain how this is losing something. It still had the ability to absorb the standard food supply as well, so it didn't just lose that.

This goes AGAINST evolution, actually.

No it doesn't. Nowhere in Evolutionary theory does it state that organisms have to get more complex. Indeed, current fossil records show that snakes lost limbs in ther Evolutionary path.

yep. and here is a link to that.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Significanc...xperiments

Conservapedia is not a scientific website. It is also a website that is editable by anyone, and it has a strong anti-evolutionary bias. Please find a decent peer-reviewed scientific document that discredits this experiment. Science is all about testing theories, and if someone has found an actual fault with Lenski's experiment, they could very easily publish it and get a lot of attention.