Challenge: Show me loss of DNA.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is a claim I see bandied around so often and also very recently: that in evolution, DNA is not gained, it is only lost.

And yet, not once does anyone show it.

The difference in the number of chromosomes between animals and species is not the loss of DNA. It's just the way that DNA is divided

Radiation does break down DNA, true, but that is not the loss of DNA.

And recessive genes is not loss of DNA either, that is just genes basically being turned off.

So to the people who say that "DNA is lost", what exactly do you mean? And can you even show it?

 

[sesquiterpene]

This is a claim I see bandied around so often and also very recently: that in evolution, DNA is not gained, it is only lost.

And yet, not once does anyone show it.

The difference in the number of chromosomes between animals and species is not the loss of DNA. It's just the way that DNA is divided

Radiation does break down DNA, true, but that is not the loss of DNA.

And recessive genes is not loss of DNA either, that is just genes basically being turned off.

So to the people who say that "DNA is lost", what exactly do you mean? And can you even show it?

I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here, but among the various types of mutations are deletions, which result in the loss of portions of your genome ranging from a single nucleotide to entire chromosomes (which encompass multiple genes). This is standard genetics and I don't think it is controversial in any way.
Deletion (genetics) - Wikipedia

Of course, there are also mutations called insertions, which can add an arbitrary amount of base pairs to your genome. You'll find that different people actually have genomes of varying lengths which are the result of various losses and gains to their DNA.
Insertion (genetics) - Wikipedia

 

[Shemjaza]

This is a claim I see bandied around so often and also very recently: that in evolution, DNA is not gained, it is only lost.

And yet, not once does anyone show it.

The difference in the number of chromosomes between animals and species is not the loss of DNA. It's just the way that DNA is divided

Radiation does break down DNA, true, but that is not the loss of DNA.

And recessive genes is not loss of DNA either, that is just genes basically being turned off.

So to the people who say that "DNA is lost", what exactly do you mean? And can you even show it?

I don't think you'll get much traction on this one.

The majority of this kind of Creationist complaints seem to be about the loss of some nebulous "information" within the DNA structure.

The obvious problem is that they don't provide either a metric or an objective method of measuring this information so can't actually support its loss or gain.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't think you'll get much traction on this one.

The majority of this kind of Creationist complaints seem to be about the loss of some nebulous "information" within the DNA structure.

The obvious problem is that they don't provide either a metric or an objective method of measuring this information so can't actually support its loss or gain.

Entirely true. And while @sesquiterpene does talk about DNA loss (which is an actual thing, yes, I know), it's not in the context that some Creationists use it.

But it's worth a try, just to see if anyone will respond.