What about the DNA evidence?

[[serious]]

secondly, when I say "I don't believe" that qualifies it as a negative statement because I am countering your belief in alleged subject matter.

Ok, so you don't believe that all known sequences could arise via mutation.

I know of no sequences that couldn't arise by mutation.

Let's move to a more concrete statement of the situation and move past this silliness:

No gene or sequence of DNA has been identified in this thread which cannot have arisen via mutation

I have given several examples of novel sequences and genes that either have been or could have been formed via mutation.

Do you have an example of a gene or sequence which cannot be produced by mutation?

We can circle all you want, but if you can't come up with a single example, it just makes you look silly. I'll even make a deal with you. I'll name any number of mutation-creatable genes in the human genome you want if you give me just one example from any species that can't be created by mutation.

 

[Black Akuma]

Justa, maybe you missed it, but I really would like you to answer my question about why you chose a blog that doesn't seem to actually support the argument you were trying to make. It's been bugging me all day.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok, so you don't believe that all known sequences could arise via mutation.

I know of no sequences that couldn't arise by mutation.

Let's move to a more concrete statement of the situation and move past this silliness:

No gene or sequence of DNA has been identified in this thread which cannot have arisen via mutation

I have given several examples of novel sequences and genes that either have been or could have been formed via mutation.

Do you have an example of a gene or sequence which cannot be produced by mutation?

We can circle all you want, but if you can't come up with a single example, it just makes you look silly. I'll even make a deal with you. I'll name any number of mutation-creatable genes in the human genome you want if you give me just one example from any species that can't be created by mutation.

you have changed the bars from a positive statement to a negative statement but that won't get you out of doing your research.

 

[sfs]

you have changed the bars from a positive statement to a negative statement but that won't get you out of doing your research.

You have a very strange notion of what "burden of proof" means, I'm afraid, and also of what a positive statement is. You said that it is impossible for mutations to add genetic information. That is a positive statement, not a negative one.

Regardless of theoretical notions of burden of proof, however, when you made that statement you presumably wanted someone to believe it. If so, you have to give some reason for thinking it's true. So far, you've given no one any reason to accept your statement, and every indication that you're trying to evade dealing with substance at all. You act like a (bad) high school debater.

The fact remains that, based on ordinary notions of "information", your statement is plainly false. Mutations take existing DNA and produce DNA that didn't exist before. They add DNA, and the DNA they add exists nowhere in the genome of any member of the species. The new DNA can change the organism in important ways. If you want to have any kind of meaningful discussion about evolution, start dealing with those facts, not with whether you've made positive statements or not, or with what definition of "information" you might be using.

 

[createdtoworship]

You have a very strange notion of what "burden of proof" means, I'm afraid, and also of what a positive statement is. You said that it is impossible for mutations to add genetic information. That is a positive statement, not a negative one.

Regardless of theoretical notions of burden of proof, however, when you made that statement you presumably wanted someone to believe it. If so, you have to give some reason for thinking it's true. So far, you've given no one any reason to accept your statement, and every indication that you're trying to evade dealing with substance at all. You act like a (bad) high school debater.

The fact remains that, based on ordinary notions of "information", your statement is plainly false. Mutations take existing DNA and produce DNA that didn't exist before. They add DNA, and the DNA they add exists nowhere in the genome of any member of the species. The new DNA can change the organism in important ways. If you want to have any kind of meaningful discussion about evolution, start dealing with those facts, not with whether you've made positive statements or not, or with what definition of "information" you might be using.

a negative statement isn't necessarily a negation but a opposition to a positive statement that "it is possible to add genetic information"

I get this from :

The Burden of Proof


remember the original statement was this

I know of no genetic sequence in existance which cannot have been produced by mutation. If you do know of one, please let me know which one.

And I do not know of any new genetic information created by mutation, so the burden of proof lies at the foot of this man to prove. The words (cannot have been) reveal the positiveness of the statement. A reply like, "I don't believe it" is not therefore a positive. So you are reversing the burden of proof. You have to look at what is being said.

thanks for the comment.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok, so you don't believe that all known sequences could arise via mutation.

I know of no sequences that couldn't arise by mutation.

Let's move to a more concrete statement of the situation and move past this silliness:

No gene or sequence of DNA has been identified in this thread which cannot have arisen via mutation

I have given several examples of novel sequences and genes that either have been or could have been formed via mutation.

Do you have an example of a gene or sequence which cannot be produced by mutation?

We can circle all you want, but if you can't come up with a single example, it just makes you look silly. I'll even make a deal with you. I'll name any number of mutation-creatable genes in the human genome you want if you give me just one example from any species that can't be created by mutation.

Again. no one is arguing variation of genes can't be made by mutation. We are arguing that no new genetic sequences that did not already exists can be made. Copy number variation is not the creation of new genes, merely errors in how the DNA sequence is written. It is a mere variation of what already existed. Every paper you can show me will have the words variation contained within them, because this is a truth they can not deny. They can try to fool you into believing it is a new sequence, but it is merely a variation of what already existed.

But evolution requires more than variation, since genes exist in complex life that do not exist in simple life. You must show that a new gene can be made, not merely a variation of a gene that already existed that they call a new type because that sequence did not exist before. A new sequence is not a new gene, it is merely a variation of how an existing gene is put together. It simply has more or less DNA sequnces than the original, but those sequences already existed, they are either duplicated or deleted, made recessive or dominant.

Copy-number variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"CNVs can be caused by structural rearrangements of the genome such as deletions, duplications, inversions, and translocations."

None of these imply the creation of a new gene, merely the variation of what already existed prior. This basic fact is something no evolutionary geneticists is able to overcome, no matter how they may double-talk and call it de novo gene sequences, when in reality it is mere structural rearrangement by deletions, duplications, inversions and translocations.

 

[[serious]]

a negative statement isn't necessarily a negation but a opposition to a positive statement that "it is possible to add genetic information"

I get this from :

The Burden of Proof


remember the original statement was this



And I do not know of any new genetic information created by mutation, so the burden of proof lies at the foot of this man to prove. The words (cannot have been) reveal the positiveness of the statement. A reply like, "I don't believe it" is not therefore a positive. So you are reversing the burden of proof. You have to look at what is being said.

thanks for the comment.

You are switching terms in the middle of the discussion. my position is and has been that under your definition of information, information doesn't exist in the genetic code and is irrelevant to evolution. What I have provided for you is several examples of genetic material being added under the definition I provided at your request.

If you are making the claim that information (your definition) and genetic material (my definition) are linked, you would need to back up that assertion.

 

[createdtoworship]

You are switching terms in the middle of the discussion. my position is and has been that under your definition of information, information doesn't exist in the genetic code and is irrelevant to evolution. What I have provided for you is several examples of genetic material being added under the definition I provided at your request.

If you are making the claim that information (your definition) and genetic material (my definition) are linked, you would need to back up that assertion.

I am switching terms because you keep changing away from having to answer questions and provide proof.

you said this:

I know of no genetic sequence in existance which cannot have been produced by mutation. If you do know of one, please let me know which one.

now all I am interested in the moment is for you to provide positive evidence for your positive claim "have been produced" is your qualifier for a positive statement. You are saying positively that everything is produced by mutation and you know of nothing that isn't. And since I can't or havent proven otherwise, it is correct by default. On the contrary you must provide positive information supporting your claim. It is not true by default, that is an argument from silence.

 

[lucaspa]

You and your Francis Collins need to clarify just what in Satan's kingdom you're talking about.

AV, why are you saying "The Bible says so" and then saying something like "Satan's kingdom"?

The theological message from Genesis 1-3 is very clear: only God created. There is no "Satan's kingdom". Collins, and every other scientist, studies God's Creation.

Seriously, do you stop and think about the damage you do to God before you post?

Or are you talking about transitional fossils as in:

T. Rexes are transition between cyanobacteria and hummingbirds?

In technical terms: microevolution or macroevolution?

First, you know that the massive different you are trying to impose between microevolution and macroevolution does not exist. We've shown you that enough times.

Second, certainly not this strawman. T Rex is an offshoot of the lineage from theropod dinos to birds. You do know, don't you, that the current evidence says T. rex was feathered? Kind of ruins the concept of "distinct kinds", doesn't it? However, as you know, there is a transitional series of species linking theropod dinos to birds (eventually to hummingbirds).

Now, there are series of transitional individuals, such as your father being a transitional between your grandfather and you, that link species to species to species to new genera, families, orders, and even phyla. I've posted references to just a few of those transitional series documented in the literature, even here on Christian forums: http://www.christianforums.com/t155626

So, on both counts -- the DNA sequences and transitional fossils -- there is ample evidence that "God did it" by evolution. Placing the Bible above God is a grave theological error.

 

[lucaspa]

now all I am interested in the moment is for you to provide positive evidence for your positive claim "have been produced" is your qualifier for a positive statement. You are saying positively that everything is produced by mutation and you know of nothing that isn't. And since I can't or havent proven otherwise, it is correct by default. On the contrary you must provide positive information supporting your claim. It is not true by default, that is an argument from silence.

Gradyll, that "since I can't or havent proven otherwise, it is correct by default" is a logical fallacy. Nothing is "correct by default". Not in science and not in religion. Everything has to have evidence. What you stated is the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.

Natural selection is a 2 step process:
1. Variation
2. Selection.

When we think of "variation", we tend to think "mutation". However, in sexually reproducing organisms, recombination is a bigger source of variation than mutation.

How people use "information" in this discussion gets weird. Wiliam Dembski -- one of the major authors for ID -- says that information is -log2(M/N), where log2 is logarithm to the base 2, M is the number selected, N is the number possible. The example he uses is a telegrapher using Morse code. There are 2 possibilities, a dot or a dash. The telegrapher selects only 1, so each time he taps the key, the information is -log2(1/2) = -(-1) = 1 bit.

Dembski emphasizes this equation is universal: "Let me stress that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious. "

Now, in any generation more individuals are born than survive and reproduce. Thus, M is always less than N, the logarithm of the quotient is always negative, and thus information is always created by natural selection. Let me do just one example:
An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Information has increased 4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information.

In the scientific literature, biologists don't usually track "information", but they do document the rise of new, previously unseen, traits and abilities by mutation. I can give you a (very) incomplete set of references if you want.

DNA also increases by several mechanisms: insertions, gene duplication, chromosome duplication, rearrangement, even genome duplication. There is a new species of rat -- the visatch rat -- where every chromosome but the sex chromosome has been duplicated. Since all the genes on the original chromosomes are still performing their task, that leaves a huge amount of DNA that can evolve new abilities without interfering with the basic biochemistry of the rat.

 

[[serious]]

I am switching terms because you keep changing away from having to answer questions and provide proof.

you said this:



now all I am interested in the moment is for you to provide positive evidence for your positive claim "have been produced" is your qualifier for a positive statement. You are saying positively that everything is produced by mutation and you know of nothing that isn't. And since I can't or havent proven otherwise, it is correct by default. On the contrary you must provide positive information supporting your claim. It is not true by default, that is an argument from silence.

Well, I've cited several that either have been produced (nylonase, antibiotic resistance would be another, roundup resistance yet another) and ones for which could have been produced by mutation (the red cone of the human eye, alternate forms of hemoglobin) so we've got several examples of sequences that CAN be produced by mutation, and ZERO examples of those that can't.

So on one side we've got several examples where it has happened and several examples for which it can explain the origins of genes. On your side, we have crickets.

I have no problem backing up my claim that mutation can create new sequences via duplication and alteration. I also already defended that as an example of new genetic material under the definition given in this thread.

Seriously, one little example of something mutation can't make. One teeny tiny little example. A single quantum of support for your position.

EDIT: One little correction: you said the following "You are saying positively that everything is produced by mutation and you know of nothing that isn't." More accurately I'm saying that we know of sequences which were created via mutation (I've referenced several) and I've yet to find an example of one that couldn't have arisen from mutation. I don't have any reason to suppose a barrier exists to the creation of any arbitrary sequence, so unless evidence is presented that such a barrier exists, I see no reason to discount that mutation could have accounted for all extant sequences. At least as an intellectual exercise, I could see how such a sequence could be identified if it did exist. For example, if there was a sequence such that any frameshift or substitution of the code would be lethal to the organism regardless of where it was in the genome, it would stand to reason that there could be no path by which that sequence could evolve since the intermediary step would be lethal. I don't know of any sequence that would fulfil those properties, but at least in theory one could be discovered.

 

[lucaspa]

Nothing new was created, just one or more sections of the DNA were copied incorrectly.

The copying error, in these cases, makes new DNA. So we have something "new" -- DNA that did not exist before.

What you are saying is that the new DNA has the same alleles as the old DNA. And that is true. However, the "old" alleles still exist, so the cell/organism still has the function of those alleles. So, when mutations change the alleles in the new DNA, it does not disrupt the original DNA and the function.

New alleles is not mentioned in either paper, or any paper, except as a hypothesis of something never observed.

You need to do a better literature search on PubMed before you state "or any paper" Try this: mutation new allele NOT cancer NOT tumor - PubMed - NCBI

Look at #3: " Analyses of tomato fruit brightness mutants uncover both cutin-deficient and cutin- abundant mutants and a new hypomorphic allele of GDSL lipase".

Notice that "new allele" is in the title. You can also look at this paper:
"New mutations in flagellar motors identified by whole genome sequencing in Chlamydomonas." New alleles.

Here are some references where new traits have also emerged with the new alleles:

J Bacteriol 1999 Jun;181(11):3341-50. Isolation and characterization of mutations in Bacillus subtilis that allow spore germination in the novel germinant D-alanine. Paidhungat M, Setlow P

EMBO J 1999 May 4;18(9):2352-63. The specificity of polygalacturonase-inhibiting protein (PGIP): a single amino acid substitution in the solvent-exposed beta-strand/beta-turn region of the leucine-rich repeats (LRRs) confers a new recognition capability. Leckie F, Mattei B, Capodicasa C, Hemmings A, Nuss L, Aracri B, De Lorenzo G,

EMBO J 1998 Jul 15;17(14):3850-7. Gain-of-function mutations in FcgammaRI of NOD mice: implications for the evolution of the Ig superfamily. Gavin AL, Tan PS, Hogarth PM

We are not arguing variations do not occur, by natural causes, or by mutation. But an incorrect copying does not a new gene make, since what was copied already existed, even if the new copy did not exist before. hence the variation in appearance in the feline species, the human species, the mouse species, every species. But they always remain the same as they always were, felines, humans, mice, or whatever.

This is a different claim: that species remain constant. You started by talking about mutations that appear between one generation and the next. Speciation, however, takes dozens/hundreds/thousands of generations. Having a mutation in a single allele, even making a new allele, does not transform a species within a single generation. Evolution doesn't work that way. So looking at changes in alleles from one generation to the next does not negate that species transform over time to other species. And no, H. sapiens did not always exist. We have the transitional individuals to show that H. sapiens transformed from H. erectus, which in turn transformed from H. habilis, which in turn transformed from A. afarensis.

Just as is clear in the fossil record. From the first T-rex fossil to the last, they are all the same with simple minor variation in size or appearance changes. The species is not in flux, but in stasis. This is why Gould initiated (punk-eek), because he could not dismiss the stasis of fossils from the first to the last, so attempted to bypass the evidence observed. Just as evolutionists are now attempting to bypass the evidence observed, variation of what already existed.

This is not an accurate statement of what Gould proposed. You need to read the essay SJ Gould, "The episodic nature of evolutionary change". In The Panda's Thumb, 1980. What Gould says is that phyletic gradualism does not happen, not that species do not change into other species.

In phyletic gradualism, large populations of one species transform into large populations of another species. That only rarely happens. Instead, what Gould says happens is that small populations of a species, geographically isolated from the parent population, transform into a small population of a new species. IOW, the fossil record is consistent with allopatric speciation. The large populations are indeed in stasis, partly because they are well-adapted to their environment (how they got large to begin with), and thus subject to stabilizing selection, partly because it takes so long for any new allele to expand in such a large population, and partly because a speciation that takes 500 generations when the generation time is 20 years is only 10,000 years and, for large animals, geological deposits represent an average of 50,000 years. So the transformation occurs between the deposition of 2 layers.

BUT, the fossil record does have many instances of allopatric speciation, when paleontologists are lucky enough to have the record in the right place. Both Gould and Eldredge have published on this, Gould for snails and Eldredge for trilobites:

"Unscrambling Time in the Fossil Record" Science vol 274, pg 1842, Dec 13, 1996. The primary article is by GA Goodfriend and SJ Gould "Paleontolgy and Chronolgy of Two evolutionary Transitions by Hybridization in the Bahamian Land Snail Cerion", pgs 1894-1897.


2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Describes transitionals.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The copying error, in these cases, makes new DNA. So we have something "new" -- DNA that did not exist before.

Apparently you do not understand the difference between a new sequencing code and new DNA.

What you are saying is that the new DNA has the same alleles as the old DNA. And that is true. However, the "old" alleles still exist, so the cell/organism still has the function of those alleles. So, when mutations change the alleles in the new DNA, it does not disrupt the original DNA and the function.

You mean when the DNA is copied into a different order, it does things the old DNA didn't do, but has no new alleles. The code is simply written differently, the instructions have changed, but the DNA has not. It is not new DNA. DNA has billions of sequnces, that can exist in billions of different orders, that change hair color, eye color, etc, but that chimp DNA will always be chimp DNA and will never change into human DNA.

Take the Coelacanth for example. It is the same today as it was 400 million of years ago, despite the fact that the climate has changed, which should of made natural selection evolve it into something else. It didn't bother to adapt to changing climate conditions, nor evolve into anything else.

In their book The Myths of Evolution, Ian Tattersall and Miles Eldredge, both well-known paleontologists, described how the stasis in the fossil record conflicted with the assumptions of Darwinism:

"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record . . . That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search . . . One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes; everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.

There are countless examples of this stability. For instance, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains 5-million-year-old fossil beds going back to the first periods of mammals. The fossil record here is so rich that paleontologists expected to find transitional forms in the fossils there that would demonstrate the evolutionary process. Yet their hopes were all in vain. It was realized that the species they suggested had evolved from one another in fact all appeared in the same periods. It was seen that “The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism.”

picture1: Above, a roughly 135-million-yearold Echinoderm (starfish) fossil, and a living specimen.
picture 2: 355 to 295-million- year-old spider fossils, right, and a present-day spider.
picture 3: Unchanged for 50 million years, the bat is another piece of evidence that undermines the theory of evolution. The well-known evolutionist scientist Jeff Hecht expresses this fact thus: “. . . the origins of bats have been a puzzle. : Even the earliest bat fossils, from about 50 million years ago, have wings that closely resemble those of modern bats.”203.197
picture4: A 140-million-year-old horseshoe crab and a living present-day specimen.
picture5: Below, an approximately 210- million-year-old boned fish fossil, and a present-day specimen.
Picture6:Left, a 300-millionyear- old Trionyx (tortoise) fossil, and a present-day tortoise
picture7: Above, an approximately 300- million-year-old water scorpion fossil from the Later Carboniferous Period, and a present-day specimen
picture 8: Below, a crab fossil approximately 55 to 35 millions year old, , and a present-day crab

It is the same with every living creature also found in the fossil record, no change over millions of years, despite the fact they went through an extinction event and an ice age.

The same with plants:

picture1: Above, Pecopteris miltani, a plant which lived 290 to 365 million years ago. A similar present- day plant called Dryopteris filix-mas.
picture2: A 350-million-yearold fossil of the marsh plant Asterophyllites grandis and a similar present- day plant
picture3: The present-day tree known as Cryptomenia japonica is identical to its 300-millionyear- old fossil counterpart..
picture4: Above, a fossil of the presentday oak tree Quercus hispanica which grew some 145 million years ago.
picture5: Alepthopteris A roughly 350-million- yea- old fossil and a present-day specimen

Again, no change at all. The originals that were to be replaced by natural selection still exist, alongside the variations.

Not genetics nor the fossil record back up evolutionary theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, poor Justa. You should not know use words if you do not know their meanings. Perhaps this will help:

Allele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And perhaps I should have included a link to evolution as well. No one who understands the theory of evolution would make this bad of a mistake as you did here:


"DNA has billions of sequnces, that can exist in billions of different orders, that change hair color, eye color, etc, but that chimp DNA will always be chimp DNA and will never change into human DNA."


No one expects chimp DNA to turn into human DNA. Evolution is a one way street. There is no going back for the chimp to the common ancestor that we shared.

Lastly the present day coelacanth is different from the ancient one. You will not find any valid sites that claim it is still the same today. In fact there are two species of coelacanth today so they are not all the same as each other.

Coelacanth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh, poor Justa. You should not know use words if you do not know their meanings. Perhaps this will help:

Allele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And perhaps I should have included a link to evolution as well. No one who understands the theory of evolution would make this bad of a mistake as you did here:


"DNA has billions of sequnces, that can exist in billions of different orders, that change hair color, eye color, etc, but that chimp DNA will always be chimp DNA and will never change into human DNA."


No one expects chimp DNA to turn into human DNA. Evolution is a one way street. There is no going back for the chimp to the common ancestor that we shared.

Lastly the present day coelacanth is different from the ancient one. You will not find any valid sites that claim it is still the same today. In fact there are two species of coelacanth today so they are not all the same as each other.

Coelacanth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

if we had common ancestors (us and chimps) would there still be a transition between the ancestor and us?

I fail to see any monkey men, or cat dogs, or dog whales.

do you have a transition between dogs and whales?

any of the above?

I thought not.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, I've cited several that either have been produced (nylonase, antibiotic resistance would be another, roundup resistance yet another) and ones for which could have been produced by mutation (the red cone of the human eye, alternate forms of hemoglobin) so we've got several examples of sequences that CAN be produced by mutation, and ZERO examples of those that can't.

So on one side we've got several examples where it has happened and several examples for which it can explain the origins of genes. On your side, we have crickets.

I have no problem backing up my claim that mutation can create new sequences via duplication and alteration. I also already defended that as an example of new genetic material under the definition given in this thread.

Seriously, one little example of something mutation can't make. One teeny tiny little example. A single quantum of support for your position.

EDIT: One little correction: you said the following "You are saying positively that everything is produced by mutation and you know of nothing that isn't." More accurately I'm saying that we know of sequences which were created via mutation (I've referenced several) and I've yet to find an example of one that couldn't have arisen from mutation. I don't have any reason to suppose a barrier exists to the creation of any arbitrary sequence, so unless evidence is presented that such a barrier exists, I see no reason to discount that mutation could have accounted for all extant sequences. At least as an intellectual exercise, I could see how such a sequence could be identified if it did exist. For example, if there was a sequence such that any frameshift or substitution of the code would be lethal to the organism regardless of where it was in the genome, it would stand to reason that there could be no path by which that sequence could evolve since the intermediary step would be lethal. I don't know of any sequence that would fulfil those properties, but at least in theory one could be discovered.

just because SOME things may be caused by mutation, doesn't mean ALL.

you gave a few examples, I am sure I could poke holes in them, but I don't need to because they are merely a few examples.

 

[createdtoworship]

Gradyll, that "since I can't or havent proven otherwise, it is correct by default" is a logical fallacy. Nothing is "correct by default". Not in science and not in religion. Everything has to have evidence. What you stated is the Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy.

Natural selection is a 2 step process:
1. Variation
2. Selection.

When we think of "variation", we tend to think "mutation". However, in sexually reproducing organisms, recombination is a bigger source of variation than mutation.

How people use "information" in this discussion gets weird. Wiliam Dembski -- one of the major authors for ID -- says that information is -log2(M/N), where log2 is logarithm to the base 2, M is the number selected, N is the number possible. The example he uses is a telegrapher using Morse code. There are 2 possibilities, a dot or a dash. The telegrapher selects only 1, so each time he taps the key, the information is -log2(1/2) = -(-1) = 1 bit.

Dembski emphasizes this equation is universal: "Let me stress that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds universally and is non-mysterious. "

Now, in any generation more individuals are born than survive and reproduce. Thus, M is always less than N, the logarithm of the quotient is always negative, and thus information is always created by natural selection. Let me do just one example:
An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Information has increased 4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information.

In the scientific literature, biologists don't usually track "information", but they do document the rise of new, previously unseen, traits and abilities by mutation. I can give you a (very) incomplete set of references if you want.

DNA also increases by several mechanisms: insertions, gene duplication, chromosome duplication, rearrangement, even genome duplication. There is a new species of rat -- the visatch rat -- where every chromosome but the sex chromosome has been duplicated. Since all the genes on the original chromosomes are still performing their task, that leaves a huge amount of DNA that can evolve new abilities without interfering with the basic biochemistry of the rat.

this quote:

I know of no genetic sequence in existance which cannot have been produced by mutation. If you do know of one, please let me know which one.

needs evidence, he provided a few examples, but that SOME doesn't mean ALL. His is the positive statement regarding mutations that need evidence. I merely disagreed negatively. It looks like both of you are shifting the burden of proof. Negative statements don't need evidence. Only the positive assertions. If I said God exists because you can't prove otherwise, is shifting the burden of proof, an argument from silence. There must be evidence for God's existence. (And there is, teleological, cosmic etc). If you disagreed with the above statement you don't need evidence, THEY need evidence. It's the same with our situation I disagreed that everything could have been produced by mutation, so HE needs to state his claim with fact.

 

[[serious]]

just because SOME things may be caused by mutation, doesn't mean ALL.

you gave a few examples, I am sure I could poke holes in them, but I don't need to because they are merely a few examples.

Well, so far we have zero counter examples. The fact remains that all sequences discussed here could have been or were produced by evolution. A single counter example would disprove the common descent hypothesis. You seem to be incapable of providing a single example. I've even done some of the leg work for you by describing what such a sequence would look like. I'm giving you a pretty large handicap here.

 

[Black Akuma]

How exactly is he supposed to provide evidence that he's never heard of something? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[[serious]]

if we had common ancestors (us and chimps) would there still be a transition between the ancestor and us?

I fail to see any monkey men, or cat dogs, or dog whales.

do you have a transition between dogs and whales?

any of the above?

I thought not.

Dogs did not transition to whales. We do have plenty of transitionals for whales The evolution of whales