Is that Theory or Law of Evolution?

As many of you are aware, a major difficulty for evolutionists has been proving positive mutations of genetic code. Until this there has been no actual observations of a species undergoing a change to their DNA which resulted in positive results.

The criticism of creationists that there were no observed events of positive mutation or "macro evolution" posed a big problem for evolutionist because it is a necesary step in the "theory of evolution". Effectively, the macro evolution involves the genetic code having new information added. Creationists have for a long time argued that new information cannot be added to the genetic code. Now we know better.

It appears the reason for not having observed positive genetic mutations in the past is due to their infrequent occurence. In the Linsk experiment, the mutation was observed forty (40) times. But we have to put that in the context that there were 40 trillion bacteria born. Accordingly, the prospects of genetic mutation between generations is a very infrequent event.

Nonetheless, we would expect that such mutations would not occur very often. A species success is more dependent on retaining the genetic traits that have made it successful for the current environment than in developing random new traits. Accordingly, multi chain prolymerase reactions which are used in DNA reproduction are far more effective at reproducing the same genetic structure than having "add-ons" or mutations randomly every generation.

There have already been calls for this work to be recognised with a Nobel Prize. I wouldnt go that far at this stage. I would however postulate that with the theists last argument against evolution annihilated by the evidence, we can start the push to change "The Theory of Evolution by natural selection" to "The Law of Evolution by natural selection"