Mutations have been scientifically observed to give an organism a new function, they have not however been observed to make the organism more complex, that is, building upon the existing DNA which must be required for evolution to advance.
Ever hear of insertions, duplications, polypoidy. All of these "build upon" existing DNA and provide opportunity for enlarging and diversifying the genome.
Ever compare genome size with complexity? Are you aware the human genome contains only about 5,000 more genes than the roundworm c. elegans? And many species have larger genomes than the human genome.
How is it that in many cases more information corresponds with less complexity?
In other words there has never been a mutation that has increased or
added to the genetic information of an organism.
Have you ever actually checked out the accuracy of that mantra for yourself? Are you not just uncritically accepting the say-so of your sources?
Have your sources told you what the unit of genetic information is? Have they described how to test the information content of a genome?
How can you make any claims about genetic information when you cannot describe what it is?
The fact is that since mutations only scramble the existing DNA to achieve a different read-out, resulting in (at times) a beneficial adaptation to the enviroment, this cannot be evolution!
It most certainly can. A beneficial trait triggers natural selection which changes the distribution of alleles in the species gene pool. This is evolution and results in species adaptation.
Even if we go beyond that questionable ground of evidence for evolution, likewise science has not observed, as a result of these mutations, an organism changing into anything other than what the organism was before the mutation.
Have you ever actually read anything about evolution from a source that is not committed to anti-evolution propaganda? I mentioned earlier that your own DNA carries about 100 novel mutations. Does that make you a different species than your parents or siblings?
It is not mutation that generates new species; it is blockage of gene flow. As long as a new mutation can be shared with other members of the species, no speciation occurs.
The change or the, "massive changes resulting from little changes"
The longest journey begins with a single step. If you want to you can walk all across the USA one step at a time. What prevents a similar evolutionary journey?
The important thing to keep in mind here is which side, evolution, or creation, stays within the realm of observable science.
Creation has never been in the realm of observable science. That is why we learn about creation through revelation. We learn about evolution through observation. And both are on the same side.
I have literally asked evolutionists on message boards, "Where is a real-world scientifically observable example of a mutation producing new information, thus increasing and building upon the existing DNA resulting in a new organism emerging from what was originally there?"
How many of them asked you to define information first? What was your reply?
Keep in mind, that mutations alone cannot adequately explain the phenomonan of evolution, yet they constantly try to prove it through that avenue.
Nonsense. Anyone conversant with evolution would be the first to tell you that mutations alone do not account for evolution.
They, fully believing the evolution theory as scientific fact have claimed that a bacterium, called the nylon bug here on out by me, with its adaptation to consuming nylon waste is scientific evidence of evolution. But how you ask? You may be thinking, "To me it sounds like adaptation to its environment", and that is exactly right.
Yes, it is exactly right. That is because adaptation is a product of evolution. That is what evolution by natural selection does: adapts a species to its environment. Any time you see adaptation, you can be sure you have seen evolution.
I will admit that this specific mutation is advantageous for the bacteria as it is able to use the broken down nylon as a new food source but as far as added new functional genetic information to the gene pool, I don't think so.
Excuse me? The capacity to digest nylon is a new function. This new function is the result of new genetic information. New genetic information that is expressed as a new function IS new functional genetic information.
You are too busy shifting your goal posts to think straight.
A frame-shift mutation being responsible for this change in the bacteria is when one base pair is deleted, so that all the bases after that one are read differently.
IIRC it was actually an insertion in this case, although you would also get a frameshift with a deletion.
The evolutionist would claim that the bacteria has indeed increased information as it produced a new read-out. But this new read-out is still a subset of the already existing DNA.
All DNA is a sequence of four base nucleotides. All mutations are a change in the sequence. Given these facts, how could any genetic change not be a subset of already existing DNA? What are you looking for? A fifth base nucleotide? A different genetic code? Just what is "new information"?
If anything I would say this is a special adaptation mechanism in play, which would be creationism, rather than evolution observed.
It has already been confirmed that the special adaptation mechanism in this case was a frameshift mutation. No other is needed. Especially imaginary ones that cannot be described.
