William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Mutations are 1 for 1 swaps, so they will never be plentiful enough to substantiate all life from a single cell. What i was talking about is a process called "gene duplication", as a means of acquiring new information (which fails).[....]

You should probably read more and type less. The genome can be expanded by slippage errors.

Once a gene or subsection is duplicated, so long as it isn't transposed into a vital section, natural selection can use those genes for anything at all.

This is why fish don't freeze in the Antarctic seas.

Because there is no known way for a genome to acquire new information[...]

Except that, as shown above, that is not correct.

I didn't say "natural selection isn't a mechanism", its not a mechanism which can ADD information.

That is a strawman; nothing in evolutionary theory asserts that natural selection adds information.

It is mutations which add information.

Its a mechanism which SELECTS information. You got "ajojkfeofkok", you can SELECT as many letters as you like, you aren't going to get MORE letters, and you need billions and billions MORE letters to turn a single cell into a human. Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand?

And why are you so hard-headed you cannot admit what science already knows: that transription errors can result in entire sections of code being doubled -- and that those sections are then exposed to the natural selection you've just admitted acts to pare the negative and support the positive?

/facepalm. Ive already been talking about gene duplication. "There are ways for a genome to acquire "new" information, Just the "new" information is just duplicated old information".

Hey, speaking of facepalms, save one for yourself, because you've now admitted that mutations can produce extra genes, which are then liable to mutation, which the natural selection you've already admitted xists can act upon.

Except, you're too ideologically blinded to recognize your surrender here.

The odds against any complete mutation like this are just astronomical when you break it down.

Argument from incredulity.

This is why Barrow and Tipler in "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle". List ten steps of human evolution, all so unlikely that before any could have occurred the sun would have "ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the odds of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4 to the negative 360, to the 110,000 power."

Please lay out the equation used to derive those odds. I've never read those authors, but I want to know your understanding of it.

Mmm, no, you don't need a mechanism to halt all mutation, just to limit the scope of mutation.

And what mechanism is that, do you think?

Thats not what i am arguing, what you are describing would be lateral evolution, ie a dog mutating so many times that it no longer resembles a dog, but has no grown any more complex.

Nice to see that you accept evolution from one species to another.

This doesn't really concern me, the only issue which really pertains to atheism and religion is the ability of evolution to grow something simple into something complex, ie vertical evolution.

The mitochondria in our cells bespeak that; the genes in our immune system, which correlate to the genes controlling the icing in the blood of Antarctic fish speak to that; the fact that pig organs can be used in humans speak to our biological similarities.

The real shame here is not that you are ignorant, though that's shameful enough. The real shame is that you are actively anti-knowledge. You're wasting what is clearly a well-endowed brain pursuing a vapid ideology.

What a loss.

Which has already been addressed; ergo, you should have no more objections.