I have a better analogy of 'devolution', that may or may not clear things up.

Yes, random mutations can never really be considered good or bad from a technical level really. However, scientists are still hasty to admit that 99% of mutations are bad. So how are they bad?

Well I think we can agree on this one definition. A mutation can be determined to be good or bad based on how it measures up to the original genetic data within that species. Fair enough? This may not be all encompassing, because how do you compare the loss of wings (if the data doesn't exist anymore) to the same species where the wings do exist. But this should encompass a good number of mutations.

We produced red blood cells which were much more efficient and in general just much better before sickle cell anemia. Therefore, since red blood cells do their job about 1000 times worse (that's just a number, not a scientific number, the point is is that it is worse) in a person with sickle cell anemia, would it not be fair to say that compared to the original data, this is bad?

Maybe that's an easier way to see how this mutation is negative? I don't know. Whatever, I'm probably just wasting my breath.

edit: Marco, don't bother elaborating on your point. I've researched your junk data hypothesis and I've come up with a response already. It involves some tricky use of numbers on the evolutionist's part, interestingly enough. That 2% number sounds REALLY really low.

However, that 2% actually represents 80 million nucleotides. Which doesn't sound quite so low anymore does it? Its all about how you present the information sometimes. Either way, I would say that's quite a difference.

Furthermore, you may have heard of Cytochrome C (its a widely studied amino acid chain)? Its something common to a lot of different kinds of life (like we have junk DNA in common with chimps), so it could (by that same logic) be compared side by side to see exactly how similar different species are to each other. Or in other words its a good tool for comparison between different species. We're only 3% different from corn. So does this mean we evolved from corn, or maybe I should say that corn and humans branched off from a similar ancestor?

One other quick point: E. Coli has a DNA molecule which is roughly 4,000,000 nucleotides long. So the difference between human and chimp (80 million nucleotides) is 20 times greater than an entire organism. And that's just considering the junk data. When you start going into the actual active data that number gets much much higher.

Sorry, just one more point (I have NOT done this research for myself nor did I formulate the argument for it): "Even a 0% difference in DNA can be a problem. In any given animal, the liver cells and skin cells contain the exact same DNA, but the liver looks and acts quite different then skin and skin looks and performs different tasks then the liver. There is information content in the differences between the liver and skin cells but it comes in the form of the ratio of proteins, enzymes… in the liver/skin cells, not in the DNA. However, the DNA dictates all the proteins in each type of cell and the differences we see between the skin and the liver should be smaller than what we see. So even with identical DNA there is a hidden information system which we do not yet fully understand." (This is not a direct quote from a book. This is a rewording of the points made in the book apparently).

Ludwig, Mark A., "Computer Viruses, Artificial Life and Evolution", American Eagle Publications, (1993) p.110-111

Further proof of this idea.

"Although all of our cells contain the same DNA, the types of proteins made differ between cell and tissue types, depending on what proteins the DNA tells the individual cell to make."

http://www.science.uwa.edu.au/about/facts/biochemistry

The point of your junk DNA argument then seems rather null.

On the surface it was a pretty good point, though. But before I finish my point, would you even have given the junk data difference a second thought if the same data had been presented differently?

To take the argument further, I could call into question the methods scientists use to even determine these percentages in the first place...but then this whole post will drag out into a whole big thing that no one reads besides.

Anyway, Matt, this is another example of lies your scientist friends are trying to spread. It should, by this time, be more readily apparent what kind of people you're allying yourselves with. They may not be intentionally misleading people, but they are misleading people.

Marco, maybe this is just me being overanalytical as usual, but I hope the sentences I chose to discuss with you here aren't offensive. I know usually I'm just overanalysing, and there's no problem in the first place, but I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking you. As far as I'm concerned this is just a friendly discussion of ideas and science.

edit: I keep calling that long post a paper by accident. Just ignore that, as its obviously not a paper.