Quote:

while the bacteria may be getting something new, you have to explain how random changes in DNA can write this data in the first place.



Just like in the example I've mentioned with the electronics experiment kit.

Explained in a simple way: Mutation applies small random changes to the DNA. Natural selection then removes all changes that are harmful, only leaving progressive modifications. These modifiactions then accumulate over time, leading to the constant evolution of species.

- As to the Kuiper and Asteroid belt question: Both are the origins of short-lived comets (the Oort cloud is only the origin of long-lived comets). "Origin" here also means the aphel of comet orbits, i.e. the position far from the sun in an elliptical comet orbit.

Asteroids, Kuiper belt objects and Oort cloud objects normally all have circular orbits. They do not come close to the sun. From time to time, objects are ejected from the belts due to gravity effects by close encounters with other objects. Those gravity effects are not directly observed, but can be computer simulated and are scientifically undisputed. The ejected objects then get elliptical orbits that lead some of them into the proximity of the sun, eventually causing their evaporation. Thus, both belts are permanently losing matter, but at a very low rate. They still have enough matter to produce comets for the next billions of years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt

There's no "comet contradiction" at all.

---

@Dan: The "initial amount" is one of the two arguments on creationist websites for dealing with the fact that the earth age disproves their faith. The other argument is "decay rates change over time".

The creationist who first came up with the "initial amount" argument apparently confused the C14 method with uranium/lead isotope dating. The C14 method indeed depends on the initial amount of C14, and thus must be calibrated. The U235->Pb207 method however does not depend on the initial amount of Pb207 and does not need any calibration. For lead rejecting minerals, like Zircon, the initial Pb207 amount is zero. For not lead rejecting minerals, isochrone dating is used. Its result is independent of the initial lead content of the rock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_dating

Because calibration is not required, the U235->Pb207 method is extremely accurate - the error is less than 0.1%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead_dating

---

On a side note: On creationist-oriented websites you'll find listed about 100 arguments for explaining away all discoveries about evolution and earth age. And on science-oriented websites like talkorigins.org you'll find a list of the refutations of all those arguments. But it's not much fun when you post an argument and I then just look up its rebuttal on talkorigins. I suggest that we discuss about more interesting themes.

What I still would like to hear, for instance, is creationist theory itself. Since creationists gave up defending it long ago, this theory seems to have disappeared from all their websites. All their remaining efforts go in attacking scientific observations, but they do not offer anything to replace them. In which way, for instance, do creationists "scientifically explain" the origin of the earth and solar system?