[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.

[edsheppa]

What kind of "information" ?

Look at the part of my post that you quoted. The adjective I used preceding the word "information" is the kind I meant.

In retrospect I see that I didn't quite address his argument. I unfortunately assumed he was putting forth the tired old creationist claim that random events cannot add information. Instead he's merely claiming that mutations of the kind we observe to happen are insufficient to account for the tremendous diversity we now observe. There may even be something to that.

I just read something very interesting over the weekend. As you probably know, as a result of the Human Genome Project, we now think there are some 30K genes in the human genome. I just read that, so far, 20K pseudogenes have been identified. Probably there are many, many more since the software is much better at locating genes. My conclusion is that duplication event are very common. That does not square with the Bergman's claim.

Now, does Bergman anywhere point to specific sequences that are, according to him, very unlikely to have been produced by the kinds of mutations we observe? The genome is available for all. Given his claim that mutations can only "degrade" the genome, he ought to be able to find them easily. Surely it's not too much to ask him to be specific, now is it?