Quote from NickelScalper:
Where have you demonstrated that the changes that occurred in the cited experiment are otherwise than the result of the loss of genetic information?
Meanwhile,
"Unmet Condition of Evolution #1: A modification, beyond the mere loss of information due to mutation, in the genetic composition of a population resulting in a new species."
stands as such.
After wandering the web, I have come across the source of your argument, i.e., the debate between Dr. Lee Spetner and Dr. Edward Max. Why the hell, you seem to think that keeping your sources and argument a secret does anything to make you appear anything but deceitful is beyond me, but, maybe you just enjoy playing the Oracle.
From my perspective, what you're doing doesn't serve to advance knowledge -- it just prolongs the agony of a meaningless debate.
Re the cited example, I don't need to demonstrate anything other than that the creature can no longer breed with its predecessor, but that it can breed amongst its own kind.
You are imputing that this result is from a loss of information, because you have read an argument between two scientists who vehemently disagree as to the minutia of genetic drift, random mutation and adaptation.
By no means do I believe that I have the scientific knowledge base of either of the two above-referenced biologists. However, I do know this: The lab worm in the example has changed sufficiently so that it can no longer breed with the field population. You regard this as a minor detail. I find it pretty enormous.
Let me put it this way. If tomorrow there was a report of a human population somewhere in the world that could not breed with any of the rest of the world's population of humans, but otherwise, appeared absolutely the same in every respect, the entire world would be shitting its pants trying to assess the implications of such a discovery. Someone might shout, "These aren't humans -- let's put em in a Zoo!"
You have a way of minimizing an event to maximize your argument. That may work with your friends, but it's not working with me.
The cited example MAY be the result of a loss of information, or it may not. Furthermore, loss of information may actually be irrelevant to the cause of evolution, based on the following example:
A fruit fly and a human have over 90% the identical genetic code. So, if natural evolution merely twisted the other 10% by accident, there is a HUGE number of possible configurations, that could result by nothing more than manipulating the existing combinations. If we assume for argument sake that loss and gain of information are equally likely, then binomial probability would result in no loss of information over 3 billion years, and the combinations that remain could still account for every species that has ever existed on this planet.
Anyway, now that I know where your argument is coming from, further argument is fruitless. It is highly unlikely that the cited study investigated what the exact genetic changes were, and at this moment, I don't have the energy to contact the authors and ask them.
However, if you really are interested in arriving at the truth, rather than merely taking pot shots at a lawyer who happens to be playing on line because he's taking care of a sick friend, then you should contact the authors and try to satisfy your quest for knowledge, one way or the other.
