> Andrew: <<Evolution means a gradual increase in complexity. This
> is what everyone used the word to mean before Darwin.
>
> That however is not the definition of evolution.
May I suggest that you go get a dictionary.
> Harmful mutations lead most often to extinction of the individual
> so I am not sure if you are correct that harmful mutations
> increase. Could you given an example ?
As a matter of observation, species tend toward decreasing complexity,
including extinction. Mutational changes which accumulate also tend
to decrease the complexity of organisms. The law of nature is devolution,
not evolution.
Andrew: <<And, when the Evolutionist tries to present an
> observation of Evolution,
> he points to something based on his irrelevant definition of Evolution
> (e.g. pepper moths),>>
>
> That is evidence supporting the proposed mechanism of evolution,
> natural selection
Thank you for agreeing with my point... when asked for examples
of observed Evolution, Evolutionists come up with this non-Evolution
stuff.
> Andrew: <<he points to the opposite of Evolution -- the loss of
> complexity (e.g. sickle-cell anemia), >>
>
> How is sickle cell anemia, less complex ? Me thinks you do not
> understand what the sickle cell anemia argument is truely about ?
Sick-cell anemia is caused by a loss of genetic information that
instruct blood cells how to form.
> Andrew: <<or he points to the deterministic expression of
> pre-existing complexity (e.g. the snow flake).>>
>
> Only when confronted by the unscientific assertion that
> complexity can not naturally increase ? And how is the snowflake
> a 'pre-existing complexity' ?
The pre-existing properties of the water molecule is the pre-existing
complexity the determines how a snowflake forms.
> On the contrary, complexity increases, occur quite often in far
> equilibrium systems in nature. THeir significance is quite relevant
Nothing more impressive that the complexity found in a snowflake.
> Andrew: << It is highly absurd to believe that random variation
> and natural selection can account for the complexity that we see.>>
>
> Argument from personal incredulity. Perhaps you should explain
> this further as well ?
Fine, point out any demonstration that natural selection and
mutation creates complexity.