Real nice. And thanks for the link - that was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for!

Zombee! I could not provide better answers, except mabe theorems of incompleteness.

Natural selection posits that genetic variations lead to different levels of success in survival and reproduction, and that organisms with genes that better help them survive and reproduce are more likely to do so, and therefor pass those genes on.

Natural Selection is not evolution. The elimination of unfit species does not translate to gaining new genetic information.

It is also observably true.

The extinction of species is observable, but not the gaining of new genetic material that was never there.

This applies only to closed systems, such as the universe, in which no new matter is entering or exiting. Biological organisms are not closed systems, thus this does not apply to them.

Biological processes all apply under Thermodynamics. This is on an atomic level in most cases sub-atomic as well i.e. photons and magnetic energy. Astronomy deals with all elements in the universe, which is where we reside. Most of the elements we see on our planet we have observed in other stars through spectroscopy. Therefore the similiar laws apply. The atoms in biological processes are the same in components of other matter in the universe. Same components then it must abide by the same laws.

There have indeed been observed instances of organisms gaining novel traits through mutation. A well known one is the experment of Richard Lenski, in which bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize citrate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

The ability to metabolize citrate doesn't mean new genetic material has been created. In fact it can more likely due to a mutation. Especially with all the replication within the own group of original bacteria. That much replication in a controlled group would indicate mistakes would happen from damaged DNA in the bacteria.

While Darwinists are quick to claim this experiment as support for “evolution” (in reference to full-blown, molecules-to-man evolution), let’s first take a step back and review what “evolution” is, along with the different narratives evolutionists and creationists tell.

“Evolution” (in a biological sense), strictly defined, is simply a change in a population’s gene frequencies over time (as generations come and go). Thus, even mutations that remove genetic information can spread if they confer some reproductive and survival advantage.

Thus, any time a biological population is observed undergoing any sort of heritable change—even a change that keeps genetic information constant or that reduces genetic information—it is “evolution” in action. This evolution “before our very eyes” is usually then touted as proof for molecules-to-man evolution, even though the latter would require a massive increase in genetic information. It’s the old “bait and switch” tactic, as “evolution” shifts meaning from experimentally shown change to unobservable molecules-to-man change.

So what’s really going on in Lenski’s experiment? Actually, nobody really knows! Lenski’s team is still working to understand “just what that earlier change was, and how it made the . . . mutation possible.” They will likely be analyzing the genome of the original E. coli parent and the genomes of its “evolved” offspring. The citrate-processing ability may be due to the activation of a latent function or a beneficial (but not information-gaining) mutation that allows citrate processing.

It’s important for us all to remember that when we read science news that seems to “confirm” evolution, it’s never a true threat to the biblical worldview and the creation account because God’s Word never changes but man’s fallible ideas do.

Furthermore, creationists are just as interested in figuring out how the citrate-processing ability came about in this batch of E. coli. AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008

Radiocarbon dating has been tested repeatedly to ensure consistency and accuracy...

This is not the case at all. View it like this a Natural Selection of preferred dates survive the dating method.

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates."

Robert E. Lee, Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9

"Throughout the conference emphasis was placed on the fact that laboratories do not measure ages, they measure sample activities. The connection between activity and age is made through a set of assumptions... one of the main assumptions of C14 dating is that the atmospheric radiocarbon level has held steady over the age range to which the method applies."

Report on 14th Conference, 145 International Scientists, Science, Vol. 150, p. 1490.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html#Problems

There is a precambrian fossil record, and although it is less complete, it is not nonexistant. Conditions of precambrian earth were not conducive to the creation of fossils or the evolution of larger complex animals. Additionally, most precambrian life was not composed of many 'hard parts' like shells and bones, and soft tissue does not fossilize well.

According to evolutionists, the oldest fossils ever found are a blue-green algae that lived along the coast of Australia and South Africa. These fossils have been dated by them to be 3.5 billion years old. But when they examined these fossils under the microscope, they found that they were identical to the blue-green algae that are still living today.

Dr. William Schopf, a leading evolutionist, says that this presents a tremendous problem for evolution. You see, evolution is based upon change, and yet these algae don’t appear to have changed at all in their supposed 3.5 billion years.

If evolution is based on everything changing, why do we find these oldest fossils to be identical to the living algae today? And it’s not just the blue-green algae—scientists continue to find many living animals that appear to have hardly changed at all compared to their fossils that are allegedly millions of years old.

The answer is in Genesis. God made all living things—including blue-green algae—only thousands of years ago. They’ve always reproduced after their own kind, as commanded by the Creator.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/e-mail/archive/AnswersWeekly/2004/1204.asp

This is interesting for evolutionists because we find such old fossils, and yet they have not changed at all. Just because their supposed age is so far back in history yet they are the same today. So having "hard parts" isn't necessary for fossilization.

This is not true. The human fossil record, for instance, is composed of fossils showing a smooth transition from small brained hominids with prognathic faces, large supraorbital toruses, and the retention of arboreal adaptations, to large brained homionids with orthagnathic faces, flat supraorbital toruses, and adaptations for obligate bipedalism. The record includes many specimens that are amazingly complete.

This is one of my favorite topics to debate. The supposed evolution of man, there are too many assumptions to count. I will reference a site that you have used before.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Let's look at what these experts really know.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/toumai.html

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

No bones below the skull have been discovered yet, so it is not known whether Toumai was bipedal or not. Brunet et al. say that it would be a not unreasonable inference that it was a habitual biped because it shares characteristics with other hominids known to be bipedal. Other scientists have pointed out the foramen magnum (the hole through which the spinal cord exits the skull) of Toumai is positioned towards the back of the skull as in apes, indicating that the skull was held forward and not balanced on top of an erect body.

...has suggested that it may be an early gorilla. It is, I think, impossible to know how Toumai is related to us until other fossils can be found from the same time period.

Finally some honesty from evolutionists.

So there is no bones below the skull. So we can't infer the rest of its skeletal structure (we can through assumptions). Its skull size is more comparable to a chimp. Then its evident that its skull was projected forward indicating a quadreped. So what we have here is an ape in every sense of its biology.

Orrorin tugenensis

This species was named in July 2001 from fossils discovered in western Kenya (Senut et al. 2001). The fossils include fragmentary arm and thigh bones, lower jaws, and teeth and were discovered in deposits that are about 6 million years old. The limb bones are about 1.5 times larger than those of Lucy, and suggest that it was about the size of a female chimpanzee. Its finders have claimed that Orrorin was a human ancestor adapted to both bipedality and tree climbing, and that the australopithecines are an extinct offshoot. Given the fragmentary nature of the remains, other scientists have been skeptical of these claims so far (Aiello and Collard 2001). A later paper (Galik et al. 2004) has found further evidence of bipedality in the fossil femur.

We have here bone fragments of a chimp here. The limb bones are the same size as a female chimp. They infer (or assume) bipedal from what again... that's right fragments of thigh, lower jaw, and teeth bones. How is this observable science? Maybe we should call it based on pure assumptions... perhaps Darwinian evolution.

I could go on to the rest of the hominid classes, but they are all written the same. Partial or fragments then followed by "we believe". So how is evolution not a religious ideal? This evidence is pathetic at best.

If you would like to argue a specific chimp (I mean hominid) we can do that as well.

Well you are as full of assumptions as any other non-scientist (evolutionist). I will break down your argument and show you how lacking of evidence you really possess.

1. Tautology applies to formal logic, not natural processes.

This is not true. The hypothetical formulation of evolutionary process is defined directly under a logical argument. Since it is not directly observable.

Definition of TAUTOLOGY

1a : needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word b : an instance of tautology

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tautology

One species may well be the fittest in its forest right now, but what if a new species moves in or evolves to be more competitive? The parameters have changed, so "fittest" may have a new definition

The evolution does not occur here. Natural Selection kills off those species that aren't equipped to survive their environment. If a species relocates to another environment and are not fit to survive then they die out. Unless certain mutations take place. This is still not new information. Reorganizing base pairs in the genome doesn't translate to completely new amino acids being created.

If evolution defies the 2nd law, then so does maturing from a small and fairly simple baby to a larger, more complex adult. Plus the second law refers to total energy amount. As long as there is some energy in the system, it can be transferred from one object to another. That is how we prolong our life by consuming other life, and as long as that is an option for a species, it has the time it needs to evolve.

Evolution defies and contradicts itself. Natural Selection directly relates to the second law of Thermodynamics. That and the law of conservation of mass and energy. Recycling material does not create new genetic information. This has never been observed.

This whole "new information" concept is silly.

But that is what evolution depends on. So the evolutionary concept is silly we actually agree on something.

If rearrangement of nucleic acids in a given sequence is what it takes to create "new information" than yes, that happens.

That is mutation not evolution. The amino acids in a given genome don't add a new type of acid. They can't create what isn't there. To assume they can is to impose premonition to the genome. That is extremely absurd. Those rearranged base pairs are already existed information. The genome can't create a completely new and unfamiliar acid.

This is why you don't look exactly like either of your parents but probably resemble both of them to some extent. If no "new information" was created we would all be identical clones.

You are way off with your logic here. We don't look exactly alike because we have a mixture of both sets of genes. This would be the 'gene pool' that you hear about. The DNA wouldn't replicate the same every time. The mixing of parents DNA could introduce base pairs that weren't their before. But this wouldn't give a person the ability to fly!! It's still going to be a full human genome.

The Cambrian explosion wasn't really out of the blue.

This is a completely separate debate here. I have no problem getting into supposed ages in another topic.

No we aren't going to find every-single tiny little step in the process. We would need full genetic data for that, and once all the organic matter has broken down, we just don't get that. Also, very few things fossilize, and we haven't found all the fossils that exist. And fossil skeletons only show us changes in skeleton plan, they don't tell us everything about changes in development, skin color, organ functions etc.

Now you sound like a real scientist. Admitting the severe lack of knowledge that evolutionists base their assumptions on.

But they do show a sweeping and elegant transformation in numerous species.

No, they show enormous gaps in the transition process. So enormous in fact that in most cases they are not even talking about the same creature i.e. land animals to whales. What you see is a land animal that eats plants, and then the next transition is a whale that eats fish. How did they get this information? They got it just from a skull nothing more. You see then how this is highly assumptuous.

And if you dig into certain theories for quantum physics...

I would suggest you abide by the Laws of Thermodynamics. Especially before you tote a theory in Quantum Physics. Remember theories aren't scientifically proven. The assumption for spontaneous energy production is in no way testable. At least in the natural sciences.

Actually, organic matter does form naturally, all over the universe. After that, you just need heat and a flat surface to create macromolecules. After that you just need the macromolecules to hang out in the right amounts to get self-replicating protobionts.

You actually don't need a flat surface at all. But remember you are in the gray area of science here.

Radiocarbon dating is only one of dozens of dating methods used. These methods agree with each other constantly, so if they were wrong they would all be almost exactly as wrong.

And they are just as wrong and rarely coincide with each other. Radiocarbon dating is one the biggest farces in science.