'You could wait billions of years, but without a mechanism for generating new specified information, there will be no net evolutionary change.'

Going in circles here.

This is a common question posed by those who lack the understanding of how Evolution actually functions.

www.talkorigins.org <--- problem solved.

"West said: "Darwins discovery of natural selection has been confirmed in the lab and in the field. It's patently obvious that you don't know much about evolutionary biology, theory or otherwise. Here's a little insight for you - not even bible-bashing creationists deny the process of natural selection. It's observable and testable. "

Oligarch you contradict yourself. How do you think creationists are aware of natural selection? Creationism is unthinking superstition at any level wether a person is franatical or not. Infact I cannot see how a creationist can be a fanatic, creationism is fringe lunacy. A person has either a grip on reality or they do not , to be a creationist a person has to deny reality , creationism is politics it has nothing to do with spirituality.

It is all beside the point Intelligent Design is deception , its a con. There has never been an honest argument supporting Intelligent design , God the missing link between magic and design has never been produced.ID pushers cant even reproduce the magic spells a god would have to use to "intelligently design ".

The real issue and the only issue is protecting children in schools from child predators who push ID.

I think you need some help West, so here is an addendum for you to read;

http://www.textaddons.com/Docs/5_06_Biology%20Concepts%20&%20Connections%202000.pdf
Worth remembering this;
the Miller-Urey experiment ; I would imagine everyone in the evolutionary circle knows who these people are then?
If not , why not?
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/

I have to track down some actual reproduced publications if I can;
I will post them as soon as I can find it ; if it exists out side of Book form.
There is about 12 other such publications, so be patient.

spendocrat said: "This is a common question posed by those who lack the understanding of how Evolution actually functions."

Are you an intellectually fulfilled atheist? It appears not. Otherwise you would have mentioned that according to Darwinism, it is the gradual accumulation of so-called "beneficial" mutations (acted on by natural selection) that provides the mechanism for up-hill evolutionary change. You need the beneficial mutations to create new specified genetic information, natural selection on its own does not do the job.

Being such an expert, I expect you'll be able to provide an irrefragable, real-world scientifically observable example of a mutation producing new specified information, thus increasing and building upon the existing DNA resulting in a new, more complex organism. Based on the Darwinian microbe to man narrative, there should be innumerable examples. And no, examples of speciation will not suffice as we require examples of new information specifying new integrated structures and functions (speciation is a result of genetic loss/deleterious mutations).

Oligarch the issue of intelligent design has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution. Intelligent design is a lie that is utilised by predators to manipulate children. Intelligent design pushers can try and muddy the waters with ridiculous arguments and mindless slurs against science. In the end intelligent design remains a lie and the only motivation a person has to want to teach intelligent design to children is child abuse.

West said: "Intelligent design is a lie that is utilised by predators to manipulate children. Intelligent design pushers can try and muddy the waters with ridiculous arguments and mindless slurs against science."

West, I have posted comments above by Dr. William Dembski defending ID as falsifiable. Indeed, it is the Darwinian narrative that is unfalsifiable by comparison.

You assert incessantly that religious philosophy is the prime driver behind ID. Applying the same philosophical filter, who are the biggest proponents of evolution? Answer, militant atheists like Richard Dawkins. His intellectually lazy polemic is driven by his atheistic worldview, not scientific curiosity. The same arguments that are levelled at ID can also be applied to Darwinists like Dawkins.