As I already pointed out, your last statement is trivially false, and you have dealt with a clear counterexample by simply restating the false claim. That makes it difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you. The development of new antibodies requires generating thousands of bits of meaningful information. You say that can't happen. It does.
Maybe if I express mathematically? New antibodies <> evolution of a new body plan.
Can you recognize there is a major different between the creation of antibodies and creating a new body type using random mutations (which are almost always deleterious) + natural selection?
I've been saying that the kind of new information needed to produce new novel body plans does not happen in evolution.
What studies? All the evidence I've ever seen says that small proteins can be generated by random mutation in noncoding sequence. Are you aware that when new genes appear in a species, they look exactly like mutated versions of noncoding sequence in closely related species (if they're not the product of gene duplication, transposition, or other known natural processes)? What is your explanation for that fact?
I don't have a specific study in mind :[
Wait, yes I do - Doug Axe did a 14-year study at Cambridge University and continues to do work with the Intelligent Design group with similar studies showing that evolution does not produce the kind of effect imagined in creating new complex life forms. He wrote a book where you may be familiar titled
Undeniable. Also a link regarding some of his work on Evolution News:
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/more_scientists_1/
As to when new genes appearing in a species that look like mutated versions of noncoding sequence in a closely related species, I think you've partially answered the question: "that look like mutated versions" - just because it "looks" like something, was this observed or just proving my point that this is an unobserved assumption? Also, I'm not necessarily opposed to related species having arisen from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, what gets called a "species" varies somewhat significantly and is not always a truly related species. You might say humans and apes are related species, and the Pika, Snowshoe hare and Jackrabbit are related species, but I would only agree on the Hares actually being 'related'.
Right -- it has the information needed to generate random mutations and select among them. Just as any living species has the information needed to generate random mutations and select among them. You have no problem with the first and think the first is impossible, for reasons you haven't given.
Let's try again. Does the DNA for a new antibody contain new information or not? Try just answering that question.
DNA has the ability to create an antibody, but I wouldn't call this a "random mutation" or creating "new information", but rather a predetermined or 'pre-programmed' response to an external/foreign agent. And.... this would not lead to a new body plan even after trillions or any number of times of occurring. Only the mind of an intelligent being can create new information. Natural processes can only transmit already existent information. This is what the folks with the ID group are demonstrating. I take it you are familiar with their work?
Um, what? That makes no sense. Common descent is accepted as a fact, while the neo-Darwinian synthesis has been rejected in favor of a much more complex understanding of evolution. You can reject a theory without rejecting all of the components of the theory. (The existence of things like koalas and toadstools was also implicit in the neo-Darwinian synthesis. Just because the latter was rejected doesn't mean we think the former don't exist.)
A universal common ancestor (or ancestral pool of interrelated life) is strongly supported by all available scientific evidence, something that is well known among scientists. You really should learn more about biology if you're going to lecture biologists about it.
Prove that a universal common ancestor IS a fact (not just 'accepted as fact'). The standard by which I'll accept such proof is the scientific method, which I'm sure you are familiar:
Take note, "it involves
careful observation, applying
rigorous skepticism about what is
observed, given that
cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation."
From what I perceive:
1. There has been ZERO observation of life arising/progressing by way of evolution over said billions of years.
2. There has been NO rigorous skepticism, and when skepticism is presented by scientists or lay people like myself it is dismissed/marginalized.
3. With zero observation and no rigor or application of what I can see as defining the nature of the scientific method, evolution has become is exactly a "distorted assumption."
In any case, in the context of the OP, universal common descent isn't really what's relevant -- we make much, much more use of local common descent, e.g. the common ancestry of all primates, or all mammals, or all vertebrates. This doesn't involve the evolution of new body plans, so do you have any quarrel with it?
It depends on the extent to which common descent is stretched. If we're talking about all hares having a common ancestor, I have no issue. If it is all canines possibly having a common ancestor, I have no issue. If it is saying fish grew legs, became a tetrapod, became a reptile, became a bird, I have an issue. If it is saying a land mammal about the size of a cat started swimming in the water, lost its legs, grew a dorsal fin, blow hole, blubber, and grew to be the largest creature on earth, I have an issue. If it is saying humans and chimps (or all mammals) had a common ancestor, I have an issue. Todd Wood has done extensive work studying what gets classified as hominids and his research has shown there are significant distinctions between human and non-human and no fossil dug up to date has bridged that gap.
Also, God's word is clear on what He created, in what order, how long it took, and that man was uniquely created--go to a zoo and notice which side of the glass you stand. The support for this model is stronger than what is being imagined to have happened over billions of years for which nobody has any direct (or even indirect) proof. Evolution from a universal common ancestor stands up solely on unqualifiable (cannot be proven) inferences.