Debate: Creationism vs. Evolutionism
Side: evolutionism

mutations, being random, most often cause a loss of information or an alteration thereof. They would not serve as the basis for some type of biological change necessitated by the environment.Yes mutations are randomYes they do cause an alteration of the genetic codeNo they don't "lose" information, only changes itI don't see how any of this presents any problem to the theory of Evolution, you just have a few misconceptions about it.None of the examples could have developed in the manner required by evolution.None of the examples you listed represent irreducible complexity, whether or not you think that could have developed through evolutionary processes or not.You continue to laud an argument that you think supports your case, yet you continue to demonstrate that you don't even understand it.A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioningA irreducibly complex system, is one which cannot have arisen gradually because it contains multiple inter-dependent parts, and that the absence of one or more of these parts causes the whole system to be non-functional.To date, no such systems have been found in nature, and if you were to find one such system you'd be the first. This is because every trait that aids the function of a system, is itself independently useful. would not produce useful structures at every instance, even of the first one was.Yes, it would. Every non-useful structure would be eliminated, until a useful structure was found.Evolution works much like trial and error. As evolutionary theory posits that each feature that develops requires phases, we could assume that the first humans would not have acquired such mental function as modern humans have. However, we have observed the usefulness of primitive mechanisms of communication among other organisms, including vocalizations meant to convey rather specific messages. As such, there would be no biological requirement for anything more advanced in the early humans, yet we are still clearly aware of the nature of human advancement.Your statement is irrelevant. It fails to take into account the factors enumerated above.This argument is a non-sequitar.Here is what you are saying:"...we have observed the usefulness of primitive mechanisms of communication among other organisms"^ this is your premise.and here you are making your conclusion:"As such, there would be no biological requirement for anything more advanced in the early humans"This is your argument1. Verbal communication is useful in many animals2. Therefore, there is no reason for complex speech to develop in humansYour conclusion does not logically follow from your premise.In many instances, the organism in question would be destroyed prior to adapting properly.In many instances, yes. Not in all instances. What is your question?You fail to take into account the fact that it is random.{laughs}I EXPECT mutation to be random. The fact that you think this is a problem tells me you don't understand evolution.Why don't you tell me how you think evolution works.If we are to assume that evolution in this scenario is caused by adaptations to environmental requirements, the lack of a such a requirement would not produce adaptations, as there would be no compulsion to adaptYes, I understand perfectly well, what you are saying. But you seem to be oblivious to why this line of reasoning is completely idiotic.You first have to prove that no such requirements are possible, before using this line of argument...you seem to have skipped that step entirely.You will also find that evolution is incompatible with information theory. This is easily illustrated by the origins of life on Earth. If we are to assume that cells formed, it is necessary to have the genetic information to create the organelles. However, that requires the ability to read that information. However, the ability to read such information suggests that compatible DNA has already developedExcept this is not how DNA works. Micro-organisms do not "read" DNA like you and I read words. This requires a certain level of comprehension. This is the problem when people take certain analogies too literally. DNA is an acid, it is in itself a cause of various effects especially in meiosis. It is not the interpretation or comprehension of DNA but the DNA itself which affects the development of organisms, despite the fact that it is often described that way in literature.