[schmichael]

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

There is far more evidence to suggest that all life came from a gene pool of species rather than a single organism.

if there is such a large quantity of evidence, why don't you try to provide some instead of merely asserting that this evidence exists in abundance.

the problem with this hypothesis is still the same, where did the original species come from?

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

I see you ignored what I posted concerning increases.

How very, very convenient.

So here it is again:

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

These are observed instances of an increase in genetic information that led to evolution.

i didn't ignore it there was nothing to comment on. even on talkorigins they don't actually include any of the research or the findings so what was i supposed to critique?

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

A Japanese bacterium that suffered a frame shift mutation that just happened to allow it to metabolize nylon waste is another example.

i thought you didn't believe that all life evolved from simple cells?

if on the other hand you do, where do they fit on your evolutionary tree of life?

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

It turns out that several kinds of mutation do this, notably duplication and polyploidy.

where is the new info? do you think that by copying chromosomes you have created new info? you must realise that photocopying a page adds no new information; it just duplicates it.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

If a bacteria becomes penicillin-resistant, it really does contain new information. We know this because researchers have now got to the point where they have read out (sequenced) every last bit of the DNA in some bacteria. This means that it's possible to do before-and-after measurements.....

see directly above. there is no new info, only copied info that gets either naturally or artificially selected for.

the rest of your examples are merely forms of the same example. the mutants already exist, all that happens is the non mutants are killed off leaving just the mutants to reproduce. again, no new info is created. only existing info is altered or deleted.

as for using viruses as proof, two points to note.

1. viruses appear nowhere on any evolutionary tree of life, so can not be used to prove humans evolved from apes or that whales evolved from horses or whatever.

2. viruses aren't even alive in the normal sense. A virus is nothing much more than a protein coat and a single packet of information (RNA or DNA). It has no complex cellular machinery, and should not really be called ‘alive’. It hijacks the machinery of an existing cell.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

Is that enough? I can go on and on. You can continue ignoring what I post, for whatever reasons, and I continue to make you look like a fool while you protest that I have not provided any evidence for increases in information while anyone with a set of WORKING eyes can see that I have.

we are all aware of how much you can cut and paste (not to mention bait and switch and setting up straw men to attack). your problem is that i'm not fazed by the amount of info you post, i'm only interested in the content and, frankly, it's not helping you at all.

all of your examples do not increase info, they merely modify existing info.

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

Had enough yet? I'm kind of getting tired of posting massive amounts of evidence of INCREASES IN GENETIC INFORMATION while you ignore them and say the words aren't even there on the screen, myself.

i don't ignore them, i wade through all of the rubbish you post (and there's plenty) and i refute your arguement.

can you at least post what your hypothesis or definition of common descent is? i need a good laugh after the week i've had.