The Current Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory

First let's address the so-called issue of genetic information. You challenged me to provide an example where a mutations caused an increase in the genome. Let me first be clear that logic behind your claim is sorely lacking. You said that mutations or copying mistakes destroy functional genes, but that is a disservice to the incredible complexity of the genome. Considering all the regulatory sequences that govern gene expression, all the way proteins and genes interact, and the inherent structure of DNA, one missing or replaced base pair can have tremendous effects of the expression of genes, the proteins the express, and the function of those proteins. For example, imagine if one base pair in a gene was removed. Now everysingle codon in theat gene is shifted over one, which means all the amino acids will change as well, resulting in a completely different protein. It is possible that protein won't work, its possible it will, but the idea that mutations can only destroy functional proteins is inherently false. Now here's the evidence you said I needed to refute your claims. 1. In a paper called "Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution" by Prijambada et al. (1995) found "Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO, which initially has no enzyme activity to degrade this xenobiotic compound [6-aminohexanoate linear dimer], was successfully expanded in its metabolic ability. Two new enzyme activities, 6-aminohexanoate cyclic dimer hydrolase and 6-aminohexanoate dimer hydrolase, were detected in the adapted strains." The paper went on to say "The adaptation of microorganisms to nonphysiological substrates has been extensively studied, and several molecular bases have been proposed: (i) alteration of substrate specificity of an enzyme (amidase/P. aeruginosa) (1), (ii) activation of a cryptic gene by mutation in the promoter region (evolved b-galactosidase Escherichia coli) (3), and (iii) alteration of regulator specificity (xylS/Pseudomonas sp.)" (PDF of study can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...). This is an example of novel genetically regulated abilities being formed via mutations (though researchers have not yet identified which mutations exactly). 2) Another example of mutations and hence evolution can be found in a study called "Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance." by Knox et. al. (1996). The study concludes "The two classes of beta-lactamases appear to have developed from an ancestral protein along separate evolutionary paths. Structural differentiation of the beta-lactamases from the DD-peptidases appears to follow differences in substrate shapes. The structure of the class A beta-lactamase has been further optimized to exclude D-alanyl peptides and process penicillin substrates with near catalytic perfection." (http://www.cell.com...(96)90182-9_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1074552196901829%3Fshowall%3Dtrue). Here we see again mutations transforming proteins into different ones by changing the amino acid sequences, and hence the shape of the protein. Mutations added information. I would like to list more examples, but I would prefer not to run into the comment again. For more cases and a more detailed response to the claim that mutations can not add genetic information go to: http://www.talkorigins.org... Now on to living fossils. You claim these are a problem for evolution- the fact is they are not. In fact, if the traits for the organism were so suited for its environment, and/or that environment did not change sufficiently enough to diminish the advantage given by those traits, natural selection would preserve, not destroy these traits. A great article that goes really into depth into this concept is "The Evolutionary Truth About Living Fossils" by Alexander J. Werth and William A. Shear in The American Scientist. Unfortunately, I could not find a free version (I have access to EBSCO through my school, if you do too here is link:http://web.a.ebscohost.com...) I have to admit, when I read that Dinosaurs and Humans may have coexisted together. However, your claims omitted some key facts that makes your interpretation of them (though they themselves are correct) incorrect. First to the tissue. Recently, the discoverer of the original tissue that sparked this debate, has found a biochemical explanation- and it isn't that humans and dinos coexisted. There is a lot of iron in your (and the T-Rex's) body, and normally that iron is tightly locked up in other biological molecules. But when the organism dies, the iron forms into nanoparticles, as well as generating free radicals. These free radicals then then cause cell membranes and proteins to tie into knots, which act almost like Formaldehyde. They ran tests to confirm this phenomena with Ostrich blood and blood vessels, and it came out positive. Thus, the mystery of Dino tissue appears to be solved, and its answer does not conflict if evolution. (read more at: http://www.livescience.com...) (Its interesting to note as the team was analyzing the tissue, it showed many similarities to Bird Collagen, which is what evolution would predict because it theorized that birds evolved from dinos like the T-Rex. ) Now on to Carbon-14 radiometric dating. while you are correct that there should be in theory 0 C-14 in dino bones, the reality is that experimental data collection has limits, and that C-14 is really only accurate in dating much more recent things. This is because modern C-14 can cause contamination in the samples, and when you get to samples with such minute quantities of C-14 deciding whether it is 60,000 or 30,000 years old, there is no practical way to tell. "The addition of only 1% modern carbon to a 60,000 year old sample causes its age to decrease by almost half, to ~37,000 years. Because carbon samples for AMS C dating customarily weigh one milligram (1000 micrograms), one percent modern carbon contamination in a 1 milligram represents 0.01 mg (10 micrograms) of carbon. Ten micrograms (10 x 10"6 grams) of modern carbon can be incorporated easily into a sample during routine chemical pretreatment even when using the best procedures in the best laboratories (Stafford et al., 1991; Verkouteren etal., 1987)." (2nd article in Creation/Evolution Summer 1992 Issue 30, though the 1st also addresses C-14 dino claims as well found here at http://ncse.com...). Thus we can see that even in the best labs, there is always going to be some error that is responsible for these readings (I would love to quote more evidence but I'm running out of space, so I ask if you have further questions to read the articles before asking me). Considering the fact that Creationist scientists generally don't have access and funding for these type of labs (the humorous story of Hugh Miller pretending to be a chemist in order to get some fragments for radiocarbon dating, then using bones that he had been warned had been contaminated comes to mind), never mind the fact they have a vested interest in the results obtained by the experiments. In conclusion the whole dino story lacks any credible evidence and has a weight of evidence against it. Finally, the over-design thing confused me slightly. The idea that facial expressions don't aid in natural selection seems ridiculous. Even lesser animals like wolfs use facial expressions to communicate with each other. Having a variety of facial expressions allows for more advanced social interactions, increasing likelihood of working together, thus increasing survival and hence natural selection and evolution.I would like it if you gave another more clear example of over-design. Your turn:)