Evolution is true

Thank you for keeping it short. I appreciate that! 1. Mutations "Con claims that mutations can only cause a loss of information, not a gain. That is blatantly false." Can mutations create new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by‘information’. It seems we need to define some terms. A ‘mutation’ is a change in the sequence of DNA. However, a distinction needs to be made between a mutation and ‘designed variation’. There are a huge number of single letter differences between people, and these are mostly shared among all people groups.[1]This indicates that much of the diversity found among people was designed. Technically, a ‘gene’ is a piece of DNA that codes for a protein, but modern genetics has revealed that different parts of different genes are used in different combinations to produce proteins, so the definition is a bit up in the air at the moment. Most people, including scientists, use ‘gene’ to mean two different things: either 1) a piece of DNA that codes for a protein, or 2) a trait. This is an important distinction to keep in mind. A definition of ‘biological information’ is not easy to come by, and this complicates the discussion of the power of mutation to create information. However, pioneers in this field, including Gitt and others, have discussed this issue at great length so it is not necessary to reproduce all the arguments here. I will follow Gitt and define information as, “ … an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose”, and state that, “Information is always present when all the following five hierarchical levels are observed in a system: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics”[2] Now that we’ve defined some key terms, we can address the question, “Can mutations create new genetic information?” “Increase of genetic variety [in a population] has been observed.” You’re talking about Richard Lenski’s research. However, “it has no relevance to the origin of enzymes and catalytic pathways that evolution is supposed to explain.”[3] “Increase of genetic material has been observed. Novel genetic material has been observed. Novel genetically-regulated abilities has been observed.” As evidenced through the link you provided, they seem to think gene duplication accounts for the ‘new’ (however they define new) ‘information’. Invariably, the people who use this as an argument never tell us the rate of duplication necessary, nor how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, nor the needed rate of turning on and off, nor the likelihood of a new function arising in the silenced gene, nor how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, nor the rate at which the silenced ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost at random (genetic drift) or through natural selection. These numbers are not friendly to evolutionary theory, and mathematical studies that have attempted to study the issue have run into a wall of improbability, even when attempting to model simple changes. This is akin to the mathematical difficulties Michael Behe discusses in his book, The Edge of Evolution. In fact, gene deletionsand loss-of-function mutations for useful genes are surprisingly common.Why would anyone expect a deactivated gene to stick around for a million years or more while an unlikely new function develops? But the situation with gene duplication is even more complicated than this. The effect of a gene often depends on gene copy number. If an organism appears with extra copies of a certain gene, it may not be able to control the expression of that gene and an imbalance will occur in its physiology, decreasing its fitness (e.g. trisomy causes abnormalities such as Down syndrome because of such gene dosage effects). Since copy number is a type of information, and since copy number variations are known to occur (even among people), this is an example of a mutation that changes information. Notice I did not say‘adds’ information, but ‘changes’. Likewise, gene duplication is usually, though not always, bad. In the cases where it can occur without damaging the organism, one needs to ask if this is really an addition of information. Even better than that, is this the type of addition required by evolution? No, it is not. Several creationists have written on this subject, including Lightner,[4]Liu and Moran.[5]Even if an example of a new function arising through gene duplication is discovered, the function of the new must necessarily be related to the function of the old, such as a new but similar catalysis end product of an enzyme. There is no reason to expect otherwise. New functions arising through duplication are not impossible, but they are vanishingly unlikely, and they become more unlikely with each degree of change required for the development of each new function. 2. Transitional Fossils “Transitional fossils between different Phacops?” You’re point? You cited an example of variations within a created kind. ‘Transitional fossils’between ‘different’ Phacops would be variations within the kind Phacops. There not changing into a different kind—like goo-to-you evolution requires. Ironically, Phacops are evidence for creation, not evolution—and testifies to the evidence of the global flood.[6][7] “Transitional fossils of coiled oysters changing shape?” The old Ostrea/Gryphaeastory, i.e., that a flat oyster evolved into more and more coiled forms till it coiled itself shut? Once this was regarded as a key proof of an evolutionary lineage in the fossil record. But now it seems that the coiling was the oyster’s built-in programming to respond to the environment, or ecophenotypic change[8] “Tons of transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds?” The CMI website has documented that two famous alleged feathered dinosaurs are ‘dated’ younger than their supposed descendant, Archaeopteryx, and more likely to be flightless birds (Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx). Another famous example, Archaeoraptor, was a fake.[9][10][11] “Transitional fossils documenting the evolution from a kind of mammal to whales?” http://www.answersingenesis.org...; http://creation.com... “Examples of transitional fossils that document the evolution between fish and tetrapods?” http://creation.com...; http://www.icr.org... “The very common fossils of Rhizosolenia, which shows a speciation event?” Must I really explain this? Oh no, two or more species of one kind! Isn't that evolution? You seem to think so. This is again variation within kind. And the Bible desribes living things multiplying after their kind. Of course, if someone insists on defining evolution as “a change in gene frequency,” then this example “proves evolution”—but it also “proves creation,” since varying the amounts of already-existing genes is what creation is all about.3. Speciation“See my refutation on mutations.” You mentioned a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations. The cases of which I admitted the existance of in the first round. For evolution to be true there would have to be billions of these cases. The fact is we only see mutations causing a loss of information. Mutations do produce novel genetic changes, but never has a mutation been known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system. On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA. For random mutations to add the information for a leg where there is none is asking a lot, in fact, asking too much."The Bible said that animals were created in their present form." Really? Can you find me the verse that says that? "[Evolution is possible] even with only the decrease of information." Explain this in the next round, please. Citations in comments