There might well be -- and maybe we could find out if you didn't keep refusing to answer basic questions. Does the creation of antibodies create new information in DNA or not? Is it meaningful information or not? (And no, the bulk of mutations are not deleterious. If they were you'd be dead.)
And I've been trying to get you to do more than make that assertion.
I thought I answered before, but to clarify - I do not believe it is new information when an antibody is created. To illustrate how I view this: If I were to take an exam over material I've been taught/learned, and I'm asked a question and give a response during the exam, have I created new information or did I respond based upon what I already knew from what I was taught/learned? The bacteria is the question on the exam that is posed to the body. The body can only answer the question (respond to the bacteria) because God has already created within our DNA the information to respond to the question (bacteria). Further, there yet remains to be seen how the same processes that create antibodies actually has been observed leading to a new body plan, like developing wings, feathers or flippers, etc... fighting against a disease is not the same as developing new appendages and losing others - though I think this tends to be viewed homogeneously.
I think what is getting called a 'mutation' needs clarification and/or distinction. For example, cancer is a cell whose DNA has 'mutated' and now has out-of-control cell division. This is bad, this is a loss of healthy/optimal function and if left unaddressed the host will likely eventually die. In the case of antibody creation, you are calling this a mutation, but when this occurs, the body does not necessarily die. Further, if I were to live closer to the equator and have generations that follow after me, those generations would progressively have darker and darker skin in time. These 3 examples (cancer / antibody / skin melanin) are all generalized as 'mutations' of DNA, but are they really all the same phenomenon?
There are theological considerations to your antibody scenario that need to be understood as well. Do you think our body having to create antibodies to deal with disease or deal with cancer are a part of God's original design or His ultimate plan for our lives? I would hope not. That said; however, evolutionists assert that mutations, which I don't believe God originally intended (at least against things that lead to cancer and disease... even too much sun exposure can lead to skin cancer) is the same process by which He in fact created/progressed life over billions of years.
Axe did one study, the only study the IDists ever point to about how hard it is for a random protein to achieve some kind of function. How often have you seen them cite the studies that show that the same function Axe studied can be detected in random proteins quite easily -- 68 orders of magnitude more frequently than Axe's study supposedly showed. In short, you're basing your conclusions about evolution on a wildly skewed understanding of the actual scientific situation. That's a problem if you're relying on the ID people as your source of information.
So now the creationist scientists AND the ID scientists AND any other scientists who also reject evolution are all wrong... I'm just keeping a list here for reference since it keeps growing and I can see myself losing track.
No, that doesn't answer the question at all. The question was, "what is your explanation for this fact?"
Why do new proteins always look like they derive from something old by mutation?
It is a fallacy to assume that similarities in two points of comparison are the result of one becoming the second and that this change just continues to accumulate/aggregate in an additive way over billions of years--this way of reasoning is a significant contributor to the evolution worldview.
What is My Explanation:
Caveat - this is largely going to derive from my worldview and is not a solely naturalistic explanation (as it robs God of the glory and honor due him when He and His word have no say regarding His creation). My explanation is that God created all life, and it was complex life, from the beginning and what we call "DNA" represents the language (yes, still made up of proteins, made up of nucleotides) upon which God created life. I believe God used a common pattern for all life... and as a geneticist, I'm sure you see many of these patterns in your work. From God's command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, I believe God gave the life He created (for animals/insects, on days 5 and 6 of creation) the ability for life to adapt and be suited to the environment (because the environment is not the same across the entire globe).
Given this brief backdrop, could the patterns God created explain why there are similarities in DNA among me and a chimp, me and a fish, me and a horse - yes (in fact it would seem bizarre/inefficient to have completely different languages/patterns for life all intended for the same planet).
Could these patterns explain why a new protein would look like that of an older protein that has undergone some kind of mutation without having gradually stepped along over billions of years of mutation/natural selection - yes (and to clarify, I'm not saying proteins do not ever undergo a mutation, just that they do not do so to the extent that they lead to a new animal as a random happy accident... and this is not new information)<--this is the answer. I wouldn't dispute the idea that God may have created a body plan then patterned it into other similar body plans during the days of creation - scripture doesn't provide those details, but it does appear there is a pattern to created kinds.
The DNA you were born with had the ability to produce some antibodies. You now have DNA that has the ability to produce many other antibodies, tuned to the pathogens you've actually faced. Are you claiming that the DNA coding for those antibodies doesn't contain information?
I believe it contains information, but not
new information, it is a response to an external bacteria.
What thread are you reading? I have never claimed that a universal common ancestor either is a fact, or is accepted as a fact.
No disagreement - you indicated life from a universal common ancestor it is strongly supported, right? To clarify, volumes of research of inferences and assumptions with no observable evidence does not qualify as 'strong support' in my opinion. I can appreciate that it is
your view that universal common ancestry is not a fact, but I know better that this is not the shared consensus of everyone here on CF and especially not the shared consensus within the scientific community at large--there are many that accept it blindly as fact.
So why not focus on the issue where it matters and where we have better information -- on the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, rather than on the origin of body plans in the distant past? Humans and chimpanzees have the same body plan.
My only point here would be to clarify that saying humans and chimpanzees have the same body plan does not mean we are evolutionarily related from some [never found] common ancestor. Clearly there are major differences between humans and everything else, including chimps, but I do think there may be a connection between humans and the non-human beasts of the field classified as 'hominids'... outside of evolution and it may come back to patterns of created kinds. I cannot presume to know the mind of God, but when God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:26-27), I believe He may have patterned us from what He had already created, choosing a form that could carry out His will, be something that is pleasing to Him and be able to give glory, honor and praise to him, and have the capacity for His characteristics (His "likeness" or His "image")--something no other created kind will possess.