All these changes obviously require a whole lot of new genetic information to have been added over time. I just want an example of the process observed at work in a multi celled organism.
New genetic "information" is a result of mutations that occur during replication. For sexually reproducing organisms, this occurs during cell division in the formation of gametes.
Mutations themselves can be of a variety of types, including single nucleotide substitutions (i.e. changing on a single base) to duplication of existing sequences including wholesale gene or even chromosomal duplication, to deletions of sequences, translocations, etc.
The underlying effect of the mutation can vary from having no visible effect, to gain-of-function mutations (including changing an existing function), loss-of-function, and so on.
And finally, the fitness effect of the mutation with respect to the broader population can range from being neutral to deleterious (including fatal) to beneficial. However, measuring the fitness effect of a mutation is not always straightforward as it can be dependent on specific environmental pressures. A beneficial mutation in one environment may be neutral or even deleterious in another environment.
For example, a mutation conveying a bright white fur coloration might be beneficial in a snowy environment as camouflage. But conversely, in a temperate forest it might make the creature a more visible target for predators and reduce its chances for survival.
Ultimately, if you want to know how genetic variation arises, that is, how new genetic 'information' gets added to genomes, I would suggest reading up on reproduction, genetics, and specifically mutations:
Mutation - Wikipedia
Well firstly scanning through the article I missed the part where it was conducted under a controlled condition and the DNA involved was known to not exist in any of the population prior.
Like I said, this is somewhat irrelevant given that we already know a) how genetic variation arises, and b) that fitness effects are environmentally dependent and thus fluid depending on changing environmental conditions.
For example, a mutation resulting in an allele conveying pesticide resistance could have arisen a thousand generations prior. But until the pesticide is applied to the population, it wouldn't be known that that particular mutation conveys pesticide resistance and thus is beneficial to the organisms not killed off by that pesticide.
Secondly don’t you think in a debate were all animal life is believed to be related that at least some of the evidence should involve…eh hem…animals?
Of course animals are studied. And plants. And bacteria.
In the end, life is life. We all have the same DNA.
Huh? Are you implying that the change is the result of environmental “pressures?” Because all evolution theory I have ever read says that the changes are completely the result “random” mutations and that it is the environment that chooses which random mutations will move forward…ie…a mutation gives an animals offspring much more hair that it’s relatives and it is able to survive a harsher winter and pass on the trait. It isn’t the harsh winter that causes the longer hair mutation. This has nothing in comparison with “selective breeding.”
No, I'm not talking about the cause of mutations (although mutagenic materials can certainly cause mutations).
Rather it's that a controlled environment implies one that is artificially controlled; for example, a laboratory setting. Everything from availability of food supplies to ambient temperature, barometric pressure, atmosphere, would all be up to the one setting the environmental conditions.
Consequently, any selective pressures and thus traits that may be considered beneficial would also be a result of the setting of those artificial environmental conditions.
Well it is not irrelevant to me because the presence of the trait in the population shows that it already existed as an allele in the population in some minority. And just because the majority of the population dies off and that minority then becomes the majority doesn’t demonstrate UCD mechanisms. It merely demonstrates survival of the species not existence of the species.
But that is a demonstration of the mechanisms of evolution. Reproduction and mutation gives rise to new alleles. And selective pressures and other mechanisms around gene flow shape the distribution of those alleles within the population.
That's evolution in a nutshell.
