This is the second time you've mentioned these massive assumptions. Please feel free to catalog them for us, so we can understand where you might be coming from. By the way, did you ever come up with those two biochemistry papers you mentioned in #103 or thereabouts?
Well, let's see. I got mostly A's in high school, and I took a Chemistry 101 class in college before concentrating on software engineering. And I think that Nova and the Discovery Channel are really really cool.
Now, as for information & the 2LoT: Living systems are more structured than fully random. To sustain a partially structured system, you need to move molecules around. This takes energy. Therefore, all living things need to eat.
So far nobody has shown me how this makes evolution or a growing genome thermodynamcially impossible, although the creationists here love to make that claim, often throwing in a bunch of out-of-context quotes by "scientist" as a scientific-sounding flourish.
And what do you think about the rest of my posts? People on FR tend to nit-pick other people's posts without addressing the major issues that are being raised. I think you may be losing sight of the big picture here and getting focused in on particular experiments that you may have read about.
Sorry, I was getting ahead of the argument. You mean this?
But what Darwin and nobody else can explain is how "fitter" creatures arise in the first place. Evolutionists employ pure assumption to theorize that random genetic mutations lead to "fitter" creatures, e.g., stronger, faster, smarter, with better sight and hearing. This part of their theory is scientifically absurd and has absolutely no empirical scientific evidence to back it up. In fact, ALL reputable research in this field supports the oppposite view that random genetic mutations do not produce "fitter" creatures but instead produce weaker, less-surivable mutant life forms.
There are clear cases of beneficial mutations. A couple weeks ago there was the study showing that lactose intolerance is the default, and lactose tolerance is the mutation. Also there's this recent article which starts thusly:
BALTIMORE — For years after he won two gold medals in the 1964 Winter Games, Eero Mantyranta was dogged by rumors of deceit: The Finnish cross-country skier had something in his blood, people whispered, something that had given him an edge.He never failed a drug test, but the rumors turned out to be true.
Scientists eventually discovered Mantyranta harbored a rare mutation in his DNA, a quirk that caused his body to crank out more red blood cells than the average athlete. The extra cells bathed his laboring muscles in oxygen, providing the boost he needed to glide past competitors.
On the eve of the Winter Games in Salt Lake City, sports officials and scientists fear the day may not be far off when athletes born without such lucky genes could add them, cheating not with drugs but DNA.
There's also the question of how do you tell whether a mutation is "beneficial" or "deleterious"? Is a mutation for ADHD/novelty seeking behavior good or bad? (This one was mentioned in the "lactose tolerance" article above.) That recent mutation apparently was positively selected for. (It spread throughout the human gene pool too fast to have been negative.) The lesson: A mutation's goodness or badness is contextual. It depends on the host organism's environment, and the complex web of challenges & opportunities the organism faces in that environment.
As for gene duplications & modifications creating new structures, here's an example showing how the vertebrate blood clotting system evolved.
If you have scientific objections to these examples or others, lay them out. Educate us "half educated evolutionists". We're always eager to hear a good counterargument.