It's added in some areas and removed in others. The net effect is less information.
You're going to find yourself on the wrong side of history of you keep it up. The reason multiple LUCAs are being flung out like wet spaghetti is because undirected mutations + natural selection doesn't work scientifically.
It showed what I said it showed. You're so tone deaf you have no idea what I said.Dude, stop hitting yourself.
It works fine in conjunction with epigenetics.
I do not care what you said. I care about only what the experiment means in context.
Duplication does not add useful information at all.
Again, you are using terms of intelligence applied to nature.
It's damage to the existing genes.
Only in your dreams.
Again, you're dreaming.
Yes it can.
Okay, I am in the sense that It is systematic and leads to storage of information over time. It is in no way a sentient or executive intelligence though.
Only from a warped misunderstanding that the status quo should be maintained. It changes the genes. Leave your values aside.
More data is not neccesarily more information.
No, it does not... that AGAIN is just you dreaming.
Please show us where intelligence comes from in a purely material world.
You attempt to create an unfair playing field. I won't fall of it.
The change in allele frequencies across generations means a pathway to success is forged over time. Organisms are better and better able to contend with environmental changes.
Utter nonsense. Mutations are damage. They are not a creative force.
Based on variations and adaptions within the already existing genes.
Do you have any mutations? Did they damage you? The rare mutation is damaging to an individual. Accumulating benign mutations that can coalesce to increase variability in populations and can test out reproductive success is a clear path to adaptation over time. You have yet to articulate why this cannot occur. Instead you just repeat that it cannot.
Look up "genetic load".
Again you make vain claims. Mistakes are not improvements.
We do not see the types of changes that can design complex systems, such as humans.
You yourself have 70 to 200 mutations. How are you feeling?
Mistakes that increase variability to be selected from in a population can and do lead to improvements. E. Coli that metabolizes citrate becomes the norm in environment where there are none of the usual sources of nutrition.
All system components existed in rudimentary forms and evolved together. Example: Light sensitive cell spots gradually became eyes.
I'm still human, just like everyone else.
Again, a false claim without support.
Just more silliness on your part.
The fossil record is the record of a global flood and not a gradual history over supposed millions of year.
Utter nonsense.
A light sensitive cell is extremely complex. You are just regurgitating worn-out nonsense.
This has always been evolution's problem, this 'gradual' thing. The fossil record is basically empty of intermediates, the evidence only supports 'macro' evolutionary changes, not this 'gradual' idea. The 'gradual' idea is a theory hoping to be confirmed one day, but the evidence does not support the claim. It's extrapolation masquerading as interpolation.
This is just inaccurate. What was once a semi-reasonable concern has collapsed over time. Remedial forms have been found in almost every lineage in recent decades. The bat lineage still has a few gaps but otherwise everything is falling into place. Truth of the matter is: every fossil is of a transitional form. It is really just a matter of what was found first and where dead animals fossilate easily.
Your theory is not the only one which the evidence doesn't conflict with.
This is what you do not get: No creature is born drastically different from its parents. Also: There is no such a thing as a kind, per se. There are distant relatives that lose the ability to procreate with one and other.
Novel combinations occur all the time. What is the actual biological mechanism that stops variablity from varying too much then?
Yes complexity existed early on, but still structures became more specialized in some instances. Unnecessary complexity exists because of the bottom up process. A designer would make a more elegant and simple design.
That is exactly what the Bible says: after their kind.
Of course there is. We don't know precisely what they were/are, but neither do we know exactly what a "species" is either.
That is the opposite of "evolution".
Always based on what ALREADY EXISTS. That is a FACT.
The genes themselves.
Evolutionist geologists perhaps. The evidence is clearly in the world. That you and they reject it is your own fault.
Fossilization requires the same type of conditions that occurred during the flood.
Particular "levels" are NOT particular times, as your idea of layers laid down over long periods of time is a myth.
You do NOT know that radioactive particles decay at uniform rates over long periods of time. There are number of well known and well understood phenomenon that cause dramatic changes to decay rate. Z-pinch is one example.
Indeed, since God created that complexity. You have no actual evidence for an evolutionary origin of this complexity.
Again, a claim WITHOUT support.
Again, a claim WITHOUT support.
Again, a claim WITHOUT support.
So?
Capitalizing words does not make them more truthful.
Explain how the limit works, And why heritable mutations do not matter.
You are not God. You do not know him any better than I do.
I was simply agreeing with you when you said:
Again, my point is that BOTH "kind" and "species" do not have an exact definition. It does mean that either are a problem for either model.
Again, species lack of ability to continue to bred with their ancestors is not "progress" up the "great mountain of evolution".
No, they were just truthful to begin with.
The limit works because life is designed and not a free-for-all. Heritable mutations don't build anything of value. They are a downhill path, not uphill.
I never claimed to be.
Indeed, I do.
No, it adds noise. If adding noise added information, then the more static you add to a message the more information it would have. What you don't seem to understand is that the amount of information from a source is determined by the receiver, not the sender. The question you need to ask is what processes those repeats? Was it modified to understand the static?
If you understand what I just said above, you'll understand why all improvements, bar none, cannot contain too much noise. Which is why all improvements we see so far are subsets of the information that was already there.
Ah, yes, the common descentists new black box. This is what you are saying: "since DNA has not been able to make a novel feature, we'll start claiming it's epigenetics that makes magical improvements since it is not well understood how epigenetics works yet."
What the experiment means is exactly what I said, even in context. Both the Harvard experiment and the Lenski experiment show, as in every other similar experiment, that the information in the resulting organisms are subsets of the information their parents had.