[edsheppa]

May I add though, that the important thing is to address HIS ARGUMENTS.

But his argument is so obviously stupid, it hardly calls for a rebuttal. Nevertheless, I will make it. Take a genome containing a gene. The gene is duplicated (due to an error in recomibation say) to make a copy - the genome now has two copies of the gene. The copy suffers a further mutation (a single nucleotide change say) so that it produces a different product. Two mutation events, unaided even by selection, have produced new biological information.

[tallhappy]

But his argument is so obviously stupid

What is his argument?

[SirLinksalot]

Two mutation events, unaided even by selection, have produced new biological information.

What kind of "information" ?

It’s not the existence of Natural Selection that is questioned- what is questioned is can Natural Selection do anything close to what it is claimed to have done.

According to neo-Darwinian theory, genetic mutations provide the raw materials on which natural selection acts to produce evolutionary novelties.

The argument I read is that animal body plans are determined very early in development, mutations that could potentially produce new body plans must affect early embryos.

My problem with that is mutations that have been observed to act early in development either have no effect or ARE HARMFUL. In fact, the earlier and more extensive their effects, the more harmful they tend to be.

This is not surprising, since disrupting early development would be expected to disrupt all the highly integrated processes that follow.

I have not seen convincing evidence from developmental genetics that the kind of variations required by neo-Darwinism -- namely, favorable body plan mutations -- ever occur.

I'd like to see it, but have thus far, not been convinced.