Quote:

You keep saying that order or information is lost by mutations. So it's time that we define what is meant by loss or gain of information, otherwise we'll continue to talk at cross-purposes.



Sounds great.

Quote:

The whole information concerning a species is contained in its gene pool. Basically, the information amount is equivalent to the sum of all alleles in the gene pool. Can we agree on that?



Not quite. The AMOUNT of genetic data isn't what I'm referring to when I talk about order or information. Its the specificity of the data. If I have a chain of 100,000 bases that are the equivelant of DNA nonsense, that's not nearly as worthwhile as a chain of 1000 bases that contains the information for something specific.

For instance. 'Clean the Ford' is more specific than 'Clean the automobile' even though it contains less lettering. Its this specificity that is essential to the process of a germ becoming a person, and its exactly what we never see from a mutation.

Quote:

The milano mutation affected a gene responsible for the creation of apo A-I proteine, causing the production of a modified form of that proteine, apo A-I(M). This new proteine contains an amino acid cysteine that has a sulfhydryl group, causing it to pair with another proteine. This proteine pair ceases to produce HDL, but acts as pwerful antioxidant.



Not quite. The dimeric proteins (dimers) consist of 70% of the manufactured, mutated proteins. These represent why I say this mutation is a loss of information. Basically these proteins don't do much of anything. They don't produce HDLs, and even with their mutated 'benefit' they can't act as a useful anti-oxidant so they're mutated much like the non-dimers. This 70% proves that these proteins, because of the mutation, have become useless, especially without the pre-built targeting system.

The other 30% don't become dimers, so they're free to act like the old version of the protein and target 'hot spots' with build up. However, now they don't produce HDLs. They act like anti-oxidants, and mop up free radicals, etc. But they mutated to lose specific information, to gain the much less specific information of being an anti-oxidant, and it happened to be beneficial. Great, but it has nothing to do with evolution. At least, if you want me to believe that mutations like these could write a human.

Quote:

o far, so good. We have a new feature (antioxidant) but have lost an old feature (HDL).



Not quite, either. The HDLs are still produced, but the ability to produce them has become so crippled that it hardly works at all.

Quote:

the new proteine has a more complex structure than the old one).



I didn't read anything about its complexity in any of the sources, can you tell me where you're getting this from? Either way, this was a point mutation. Its not like a bunch of nucleotides were inserted and manufactured these much more complex proteins.

In fact, the majority of these proteins tend to bind together and become useless, or less useful. So explain to me how this is more complex? More complex in that they've binded together? That's not very useful, though. In that case, I'll just post this message twice, and then you'll have no reason to disagree with me.

Quote:

However the old proteine is not lost! Its allele is still in the gene pool. But the allele for the new proteine is added.



If a new allele is added, then fine and dandy. It really doesn't matter for evolution. The information in the added allele has to be more specific, not just beneficial, not just 'wasn't there before'. Otherwise mutations are just scrambling DNA to all sorts of effects without writing anything more specific.

Quote:

You might reject the second part - at least until you abandon creationism, as you certainly will when studying biology with an open mind.



I've spent a considerable amount of time studying on my own, and debating with evolutionists, and I've seen nothing yet that adequately brings Creationism into question. You've managed to outsmart my use of words, but not my theory.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."