No, I am trying to explain the science to pete by simplifying the examples. For example, I do not believe that the sun is an hourglass. But for the purpose of explaining that it is evidently more than 6,000 years old, I compared it to one.

I have no way of knowing obviously that for simple organisms and genes that all combinations of the 4 DNA letters have been tried. But I feel that pete's argument that no new "information" can be gained by random mutation is bogus because the DNA sequences mutable, and not super complex on the level of the individual gene and there are trillions of reproductive events so it is probable that all combinations have occurred and most have been dead ends weeded out by natural selection. Therefor, since different DNA sequences create different features in the organism and since many if not all possible sequences have existed due to mutation then it is not impossible, It is likely that mutation has "created" what pete would call "useful information."

On the other hand certain traits exist in the gene pool which are not common to all individuals. I have observed this first hand. A basic understanding of the principles of Natural Selection is all it takes to imagine a branching of the species as Mr. Wells did in his excellent book, The Time Machine.   


I felt that I had to explain such things in simple enough terms so that pete could not close discussion with a simple "I don't understand." That much worked. I got him to the point of basically saying that God could make the sun any way he wanted. Which is not, of course, and argument that fits the evidence.