Argument #3: Mutations

[max-greece]

Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

/thread

The so called new information that many evolutionists claim that takes place is a result of a corruption of already existing information. The examples you cite fail to achieve a "gain in functioning" mutation. In fact if there were an evolution from molecule to man we should readily see an abundance of this occurrence, we don't.

You do not understand how the genome works. Size does not relate to organism complexity. It is the organisation of the genome that counts.

There are many examples of organisms with much larger genomes than human DNA:

"For example, the marbled lungfish, Protopterus aethiopicus, has more than 40 times the amount of DNA per cell than humans!" (Figure 2). Indeed, the marbled lungfish has the largest recorded genome of any eukaryote. One haploid copy of this fish's genome is composed of a whopping 132.8 billion base pairs, while one copy of a human haploid genome has only 3.5 billion. (Genome size is usually measured in picograms [pg] and then converted to nucleotide number. One pg is equivalent to approximately 1 billion base pairs.) Therefore, genome size is clearly not an indicator of the genomic or biological complexity of an organism. Otherwise, humans would have at least as much DNA as the marbled lungfish, although probably much more."

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage...lexity-437

Of all creatures the one with the largest genome of all is the single celled Amoeba ( http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/article...omes.shtml )

Evolution, it appears, simplifies the genome whilst making it more efficient at its encoding capabilities.

This is one of the strongest arguments against an omniscient God. Why would he do it this way? You could argue for this approach if, and only if, he was learning on the job.