Please explain the increase in information from a single celled organism to an organism as complex as an octopus.
1
Try here.
2 Unless you are suggesting that
this plant is more than forty times as evolved as a human being, the amount of genetic information is irrelevant.
I'm saying that mutations won't produce any meaningful increases in information. Please read the 2nd article. It explains it way better than me.
Well, let's see ...
C1 P1 Line 1:
All observed biological changes involve only conservation or decay of the underlying genetic information.
This would appear to be the underlying message of the article, but rather than using line 2 to support this claim it is presented as a premise
for line 2 without any support.
C1 P1 Line 2:
Thus we do not observe any sort of evolution in the sense in which the word is generally understood.
I would argue that creationists do not generally understand the term in the same sense that it is generally understood.
C1 P2 Line 3:
When a creationist says that, after all, mosquitoes are not seen turning into elephants or moths, this is regarded as a simplistic retreat.
Whereas it should be regarded as a clear indication that said creationist does not understand what evolution is. Mosquitoes are specific present-day organisms; no amount of time will make them into vastly different present-day organisms.
C2 P2 Line 3:
To put it another way—of course we have never observed variation ‘across the kind’, since whatever two varieties descend from a common source, they are regarded as the same kind.
In other words, the author admits to moving the goalposts as well as circular reasoning. The term "kind" is infinitely regressible by this definition. Even proving the common ancestry of all primates would only expand the "kind" to include all primates.
C2 P3 Line 1:
Circular reasoning does not invalidate the concept of created kinds, however.
True, but it certainly invalidates the argument that invokes it.
C2 P3 Line 2:
In the same way, natural selection is also only capable of a circular definition (those who survive are the fittest, and the fittest are the ones who survive), but it is nevertheless a logical, easily observable concept.
1 That
isn't a circular definition; it's two iterations of one definition.
2
That isn't the definition of natural selection. Natural selection is the propagation of genes which promote survivability over those which hinder it.
C2 P5 Line 1:
In like manner, we can show that the observations of the living world are highly consistent with the biblically described concept of original created kinds, and inconsistent with the idea of evolution.
No, as a matter of fact, you can't.
C2 P6 Line 3:
The limits to variation—observed or unobserved—will come about inevitably because gene pools run out of ‘functionally efficient’ genetic information (or ‘teleonomic’ information).
This is just a reiteration of the still unsupported first line of the article.
C2 P9:
In any case, leading biologists are themselves now coming to the conclusion that ‘macroevolution’ is not just ‘microevolution’ [using their terminology] extended over time. In November 1980 a conference of some of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists, billed as ‘historic’, was held at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History on the topic of ‘macroevolution’. Reporting on the conference in the journal Science, Roger Lewin wrote:The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.
Well,
if we're going to be quote mining, I'd like to add "it depends on how you define it" and "the two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap".
C2 P10 Line 1:
The fact that this article reaches essentially the same conclusion in the following pages can thus hardly cause it to be regarded as radical.
Sure, we'll just ignore all mention of scriptures, Floods, intelligent creators, "evolutionists", and the "no new information" claim which is oft-repeated but
never supported or effectively explained anywhere in the article.
