Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?

I think you are now in very, very close agreement with Jar now.However, someone establishing the constraints (picking a 6 sided or 8 sided die) is constraining the process not guiding it. Once one or the other die is picked the outcomes have been "guided" to be rather different indeed. But the guider picking the cube or octahedron has no further ability to predict the outcome.

Randman, the definition of the word "random" used there is exactly as you describe the process but don't call random. You are making up an argument. It is utterly bogus!Now, given that we agree that mutations aren't random because, in fact, nothing at all is. They are all what we will now call CR (constrained random) and all uses of the term random in all texts are actually CR.Let's explain what SC is, an increase in it is or a decrease in it is. Let's have you tell us what CAN cause such changes and why a CR mutation with selection can not.

Misuse of the term guided. The roll is set in motion but NOT guided. Dice are specifically rolled on surfaces which don't deaden the roll immediately if the did guidance would be (and we've all seen it done as kids) possible. If there was a hint that "guidence" at the level needed to make a meaningful difference is possible somebody gets shot.

So you are jar are in agreement. So what? Get to the topic of THIS thread and stick to it.

This is from your second reference.And it is exactly what they are doing with the existing genomes. That is where the arrow is and they draw the target around that and call it a specified hit. It is that simple and that useless.

It isn't that it isn't confirmed yet. It is that the "concept" isn't well-formed enough to be confirmed, rejected or anything'd yet. There is NO concept! It is just made up to sound fancy and oh so "scientific".Without something precise enough to discuss, measure and confirm or deny there isn't anything at all yet.

Excuse me? You made the positive statment that mutations can not cause an increase in something originally called "information" in the genome.We have shown that there isn't ANYTHING defined which can't be "increased". Your originaly position isn't supported at all.You may not "really think" that it is necessary to define complexity to understand that it isn't increasing but you can't defend such a position. To say that something can't be increased by some process you have to say what is wrong when someone shows a process increasing anything that we can think of that might represent your unknown something.The original idea was a "scientific sounding" but unfounded attempt to suggest that evolution can't do something. Now you've dug a bit deeper and found that those putting forward the idea never really had much idea of what the heck they were talking about in the first place.In addition, it is apparent any precise definition of "complexity" that also meets intuitive ideas will be shown to have a wide range of variation in extant living things. Those living things are still (even after having huge swaths cut through life on the planet) very closely connected so steps can be shown to get from one to another to another. A few small, tiny changes a year to get from one to another.

The genomic differences between life forms and the time from earlist appearances of two separate lineages to today.There is a thread on fossil record. You state "undoubtedly". How much taphonomy do you know? This is, of course, NOT the thread to discuss it so you can find or start one on the fossil record anytime.

This was your topic originally Garrett. It would be polite and intellectually honest to admit that you were wrong about your original idea.The topic is about an increase in something in the genome caused by random mutations. Why are you off onto another topic now?This is called "moving the goalposts" and is a very common trick that creationists try to use. Of course, we've seen it so often that most people aren't fooled. They realize (finally) that they have no support for some original position and so try to move on something else.I suggest that you take the "no evidence exists for the vast majority of these transitions" to an appropriate thread.You can, in that thread define what you mean by a "transition". You can describe what evidence should look like. Then discuss which ones do have evidence and which ones don't. You've got a day to actually think that through while you are suspended.

Thread didn't really stay on topic all that long. Thankfully, it is time to close it down.