Mutations Cannot Produce the Type of Change Necessary for Darwinian Evolution

I'm sorry you felt I was using "wrong definitions." Maybe I should have said neo-Darwinian evolution, although I do describe what I mean (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I'm sorry you do not seem to realize the imperative role mutations play in evolution. I clearly stated other mechanisms of change such as migration, genetic drift and natural selection; I am definitely not under the impression that mutations are the only mechanism for evolution. My contention though is that mutations by all accounts cannot produce the type of change necessary (or useful) for the "tree of life" idea of neo-Darwinian evolution. I realize what the definition of evolution is and I know that definition does not involve Darwin's tree of life or the idea that all life has a common ancestor, but this is why I say Darwinian evolution. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Mutations, by the way, are an integral part of evolution. "Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation" (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...). Now as to your complaint about the word "information," I guess I should define what I mean since, just like evolution, it can mean different things depending on the context. I believe Dr. Werner Gitt's definition of information is suitable to describe the information-adding changes I am referring to. "To fully characterize the concept of information, five aspects must be considered"statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. Information is represented (that is, formulated, transmitted, stored) as a language. From a stipulated alphabet, the individual symbols are assembled into words (code). From these words (each word having been assigned a meaning), sentences are formed according to the firmly defined rules of grammar (syntax). These sentences are the bearers of semantic information. Furthermore, the action intended/carried out (pragmatics) and the desired/achieved goal (apobetics) belong of necessity to the concept of information. All our observations confirm that each of the five levels is always pertinent for the sender as well as the receiver" (http://creation.com...). You say "Additionally, Darwinian evolution, or evolution of any kind, has nothing to do with information. Unless you can cite a specific passage form Darwinian literature that unambiguously states that Darwin's theory of evolution is based on information, you are only grossly misrepresenting evolution." You might argue that Darwin's theory has nothing to do with information because it has nothing to do with mutations, maybe that is why I should have said neo-Darwinian evolution. But you say I am "grossly misrepresenting evolution," which only tells me that you are not very familiar with the theory of evolution, or more likely, you do not understand my premise. If the former is the case, it might do you some good to check out UC Berkeley's website on evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...). You say evolution has nothing to do with information: here is the Smithsonian's take on evolution, "Evolution occurs when there is change in the genetic material -- the chemical molecule, DNA -- which is inherited from the parents, and especially in the proportions of different genes in a population. Genes represent the segments of DNA that provide the chemical code for producing proteins. Information contained in the DNA can change by a process known as mutation" (http://humanorigins.si.edu...). Using Gitt's definition of information, clearly our genome contains information and mutations are what alter the information. My argument is that this change is not the type which will change, say a dinosaur, into a bird, no matter how many years you want to give it. Your last paragraph is really quite silly. You mention an organism loosing a limb. I am not concerned with deleterious or recombinant types of mutations because those occur. I am contending the idea that mutations can change a scale into a feather, a fin into a leg, etc. This type of change requires additional information which no amount of deleting, duplicating, or scrambling of the DNA can bring about. I don't think we can get anywhere if we can't agree on the definitions of evolution and information. Your last claim is that any type of change is adding information, but this is only using your definition of information which you say is imposed on DNA. Using Gitt's definition, you are only speaking in terms of statistics and syntax. You are equating any genetic change to an informational change, but according to Gitt's definition, this is not true. Consider Konrad Lorenz's quote from his Nobel lecture, "In any of these systems, adaptation has been achieved by the process, already mentioned, which hinges on the gaining of information by means of genetic change and natural selection, as well as on the storing of knowledge in the code of the chain molecules in the genome" (http://www.nobelprize.org...). Please cite one example of a gain-of-information (using Gitt's definition) change which was brought about by genetic mutation. I posit that there is no such example to cite, and that all examples which are commonly cited involve a loss or scrambling of information. Gain-of-function, or loss, are irrelevant to the topic as a fish might lose an eye due to mutation, but if it is in a cave environment, this might be beneficial, but no new information was added. I hope we can agree on definitions, let me know if you take issue with any of mine.