Evolution is backed by scientific evidence

Thanks W3. We're moving right along here! So, when I say the term mutation is vague, that was not directed at you or your use of the term. I'm pointing out that as a technical term it's virtually meaningless. Here's the thing to note: The useful definition of mutation comes from intelligent design: A mutation is a change to the DNA code that wasn't supposed to happen. So "supposed to" implies intent, and voila, the DNA is intelligent design. It's supposed to do certain things, sometimes something mutant happens. Francis Crick, discoverer of the DNA structure, wrote: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed" And why must they keep this in mind? Because the evidence keeps telling them it's designed. And why do want to keep telling themselves what they see is not what it appears to be? That's the $64K question, isn't it? Crick told a friend that he got the double helix structure of DNA when under the influence of LSD. I can't help but wonder - did the LSD help him overcome his anti-creator prejudice and thus enable him to see the exquisite genius that forms the foundation of all known life? DNA *is* code, that's really not debateable. It is a highly compressed version of the resultant lifeform. Each cell within our body contains the information needed to produce a copy of ourselves. That is an absolutely mind bending level of data compression. And it is literally a 3D code - much of the switching features of DNA only become apparent (and functional) when the DNA is 'rolled up' in its natural form. Sections of code far apart from each other linearly become adjacent and interactive in the 3D shape. So one thing you can see: Darwinian evolution would have required great sophistication before evolution could even function. All life relies on DNA, and the very earliest life forms (like 3+ billion year old) would appear to be DNA based. This is like finding a Pentium processor in the caveman's lair. The difference between the earliest life and today's life is a firmware difference, not the sort of complete overhauls one would expect to see from blind chance. The basic technology of life appears to have been in place from day one, based on any available evidence. So let me make a few points about antibiotic resistance. First, you have to be careful not to use language implying bacteria somehow figure out how to defeat antibiotics. If any such intent exists in the system, that would again be clear indication of design. Only designed systems can be doing things for a reason. So, to put it in purely technical terms, antibiotic resistance is a matter of hitting moving targets. Antibiotics disrupt bacteria or virus lifecycles in some way, and it often doesn't take much change for that disruption to no longer do the trick. If I told you to shoot all the redheads, the population would become more blond or brunette. That's not evolution, it's just selection working on genetic variation. But again, antibiotic resistance isn't really relevant. I'm not disputing genetic variation, nor debating mutations. The hypothesis is that these mutations can accumulate on a vast scale and produce novelty. So there's no need to keep giving examples of variation - nobody - not just me - nobody is disputing that. The thing that must be demonstrated is the large scale novelty. A note on "Imperfection" - the fact that you can lose a kidney, or a lung, and still keep going, that's the exact opposite of imperfection! That's redundancy. That's "fault tolerance" in engineering lingo, and it's a sign of robust design. Here's the problem: You're sweating to find some example of what would be bad design, and the fact that you have to work so hard on it, I think you will admit, is because any potential flaw is the exception to the rule. But if life had evolved by purely random, noise driven means, it would be about 50% junk. It's one of the first things I saw when first presented with the idea. Like the old joke about outrunning a lion - you don't need to be faster than a lion, just be faster than the slowest person in your party. Likewise, in evolution, you only have to reproduce a smidgen better than all the other pieces of junk around you. Optimization is a sign of design, not random forces. If you're using a rock for a hammer, you select one that kind of has a sort of flat face and some part you can hold on to. You're not going to select a rock with a wooden handle and a metal head, and lookey here! a claw on the back in case you bend the nail. No, designs only come about when there's a designer. A life is the claw hammer, not river rock. Ok, "information". This could be several debates just on this. But note that at it's most general, information is by definition the product of intelligence. That's what it is. "Do you have any information on the new boss?". Information tells you *about* something, and its material form is rarely important. You can memorize a phone number, write it on a piece of paper, or save it on your phone, and the information, that virtual thing we call "a phone number", is the same in each case. I think the proper term for this sense of information is 'semantic information'. So pure information is semantic information, but we often refer to a representation of information as just 'information'. "Do you have that phone number?" and I hand you the paper on which I wrote the number, we'd likely call that paper the information. So there's a sense of information as the machinery of information transfer, or the 'semantic memory'. This is the sense of information that the evolutionist must mean, since he can't agree that DNA represents any actual semantic information. So the evolutionist must say DNA "looks like" information, but actually isn't. So life looks like design and is built on a foundation that looks like information. Me, I'm a simple man - why shouldn't life just be what it looks like? Why this convoluted explanation when the obvious one will do much better? So yes, DNA does show modification, but I'd say it's designed to do so. That's genetics - variation is built into the recipe, and it apparently is part of the fault tolerance of the system. There are variations, on purpose, and may the best man win. It's a way of producing strength, but strength of the overall system, at the cost of the individual losers of the lottery. We don't like it when it's our time to die, but we can see how this recycling process produces a robust system overall. What is very different about what I'm describing and Darwinian evolution is that the variation is statistically bounded. Each species can vary somewhat, but maintains it's overall from. This is well illustrated by Lenski's long term e coli experiments - there was a cool anomaly once, with nylon digestion, but overall it's clear that the e coli will remain e coli for just as long as you want to run the experiment. There's variation, but no Darwinian evolution. No linear progression towards any novel features or species. Ok, I'm hungry, I yield my remaining 1000 characters...