Dan S de Merengue, "Mutations are never seen to be adding information to the genome".

That is no longer true. We have been able to see real, live organisms evolve for some time, but only in incremental steps, as Dan says. As of this month, we can confidently say we have seen a step that isn't incremental, if incremental means just doing the same thing better:

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

AJ,
Thanks for responding with some astute phrases – but also some clangers.

You say something like, “Everything in existence supports evolution,” which compares in every way to the universal stop gap phrase, ‘God must have done it,’ (something I never said). But I’d agree that such phrases don’t add much to reasoned debate.

Please don’t put words in my mouth – I never said that fossils were rare. I said they were difficult to form, as in the phrase, ‘raising kids these days is difficult’ (though not rare).

Highlighting the difference between these words helps to magnify the point I was making. I said that to form a fossil requires special conditions. That there are so many fossils found all over the world is possibly an indication of an unusual occurrence. A universal flood is a good explanation for the evidence found.

The following statement was curious, “The media doesn’t support it [creation]. That’s because there’s no evidence for it.” This implies that you have confidence that the media are a competent, fair, and honest judge of scientific merit!?!

Here’s a peculiar one, “The food preservation industry relies on the fact that packaging doesn't contain the right conditions for life to start.” So someone out there knows what are the right conditions for life to start? Then they need to inform those who are urgently searching for just such conditions, those that might create a living cell from non-living matter. They would easily get a Nobel Prize.

In fact, inside a can of food, with all the nutrients and proteins contained in a casing which would allow heat and other energy to pass through, is probably about the optimum conditions for life to spring into existence by itself, if it was ever going to happen. However, it never has or will.

Actually, thanks for picking me up on my slip in saying an occurrence that no one has seen (life springing into existence from non-living matter) is observable. I should have said its non-occurrence is well attested.

AJ,
If I may discuss with you an aspect of logic, that is, the law of the excluded middle. In some cases only two options are available. Such as when your mother yells, ‘Can you check if your father is in the bathroom,’ there are only two possibilities: He’s either in there or he’s not. So evidence against one is positive evidence for the other.

For the question, who or what is responsible for the origin of life on this planet, the laws of matter and energy, or a higher being beyond the natural laws? Most would answer it is either one or the other, and it would then be appropriate to apply the law of the excluded middle.

rstuart,
Regarding mutations, I think I will stick with my original comment for the moment.

Occasionally, mutations can aid in the continued existence of an organism. Creationists are well aware of the durability and adaptive qualities of living organisms, but say that any changes are kept within limits by the genome.

In all cases, mutations cause corruption or degradation of the genes. This is likely the case in that experiment from the United States that you raise.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

AJ says we firstly need to define information.

Information – a characteristic or quality that stands for, expresses, or tells about one group of things instead of others. Genes can be described as a blueprint for the design and function of living things, and are written in a coded sequence in the DNA.

Information, in our experience, implies intelligence. A code is transmitted which is understood by both the sender and recipient. This is the basis of the SETI project, with its telescopes listening for evidence of intelligent ET life in outer space.

So, in summary, the coded information contained within DNA is a pointer to a designer. For our experience tells us that information implies intelligence. Also, as in my previous post, our repeated experience reveals that life only ever proceeds from life, which implies that something living must be at the cause.

Dan S de Merengue: "Occasionally, mutations can aid in the continued existence of an organism."

That's quite an admission. So I take it you agree evolution on that scale can and does occur?

Dan S de Merengue: "any changes are kept within limits by the genome."

So how does cancer come about then? Or are you saying only good changes are kept within limits, all the bad ones are allowed to run awry.

Regarding your link, is "Dan S de Merengue" actually "Dr Don Batten"? If so that explains why it took you a while to respond. You had to go out and research it.

Dan S de Merengue: "In all cases, mutations cause corruption or degradation of the genes."

One organisms corruption is an others innovation. This citrate adaption is a case in point: if it worked well for E. Coli in their natural environment they would already be doing it, since they don't I presume it was just a "corruption" to them. But it wasn't in the new environment Lenski created.

Your argument seems to hinge on saying "mutations can never create something new" - where you get to define what "new" is. I guess now that you acknowledge spontaneous change does occur, and that natural selection does ensure good changes are kept and bad ones are discarded you had to find refuge in a new argument. You are going to have to work pretty hard to convince me (and I think most people), that this new argument isn't just playing with words. You could start by defining when different DNA is or is not "new", so you can't just keep changing the definition.

Regarding your link: I can't comment. I am not a microbiologist and besides we don't know precisely what happened - just that the results were spectacular. The link did loose a lot of credibility in my eyes when it suggested that somehow the research implied E.Coli was about to turn into a crocodile.

Dan,

I acknowledge that you personally have never said “God Must've done it” (I was referring to the many other examples such as the assertions made at the Creation “Museum”), the two phrases “Everything in existence supports evolution” and “God must have done it” aren't on par, my statement can be verified, whereas “God must've done it” is lazy logic that can be applied to anything.

<<I never said that fossils were rare.>>

I know. Note that I used the word “fossilisation”... and you would be correct too. So again, you can't have it both ways.

<<A universal flood is a good explanation for the evidence found.>>

Absolutely not.

And if you'd actually read the links I provide then you could save yourself the embarrassment of repeating this falsehood.

Here's a link that explains why the fossil record is most certainly not the result of a universal flood (a sub-section of one of my previous links):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

<<This implies that you have confidence that the media are a competent, fair, and honest judge of scientific merit!?!>>

But again, everything supports evolution – nothing supports Creationism. If you'd bother to look at both sides, then you'd see this.

<<Here’s a peculiar one, “The food preservation industry relies on the fact that packaging doesn't contain the right conditions for life to start.”>>

Well, not even that actually.

The food preservation industry is only concerned with existing bacteria and minimising it – not new lifeforms.

<<In fact, inside a can of food, ... is probably about the optimum conditions for life to spring into existence by itself, if it was ever going to happen.>>

Maybe if you left it sit there for a few million years or so. By then though, not only would there be nothing left of it, but it would be well and truly past it's 'use by' date anyway.

So your original point about the food packaging industry was incorrect to begin with.

Either way, even if new life did form in food packaging, it would be so primitive that it would be defenseless against our immune systems.

Continued...

...Continued

<<...its [abiogenesis's] non-occurrence is well attested.>>

Not really. We can't have the entire planet under a microscope. And like I said before, any new life would soon be swallowed up by more complex life.

In regards to the 'Law of the Excluded Middle'...

Yes, if you look at it as simply spiritual or physical, but what if both have multiple possibilities?

What if we've been 'barking up the wrong tree' with evolution and there is another explanation that we haven't found?

What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster made everything and we're all going to hell for not worshiping him?

As far fetched as the above sound, all I'm saying, is that even if Creationists disproved evolution, it wouldn't prove the Bible to be literally correct – a huge leap of faith would still be required for that. After all, considering the Bible's murky origins, it takes a huge leap of faith to believe that a God dictated the bible to it's authors.

To extend on what rstuart said... There is no known 'mechanism' or reason to believe that the E-coli in Lenski's experiment couldn't evolve into far more complex life given the right conditions and millions of years.

This is where Creationists become unstuck. They don't know why evolution has boundaries, they just know it does. Yet there is nothing to suggest any such boundaries, so they rely on the completely debunkable "young Earth" theory.

<<In all cases, mutations cause corruption...>>

Absolutely not. In fact, this has been debunked so many times it's amazing that Creationists still repeat it!

Again... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB

I concur with rstuart, the 'crocodiles' comment was poor form and came off a little panicky.

For me though, the article was ruined from the beginning with the use of the term “neo-Darwinism”. You can no more have a “Darwinist” than you can have a “Newtonist” or an “Einsteinian”.

Then this...

“This was an appropriate expectation for one who believes in evolution.”

Belief in evolution is not required, as a 'belief' in something requires a leap of faith. One need only accept evolution as it is backed evidence.