What about the DNA evidence?

[Loudmouth]

it's a mutation but no new information. Just alteration, like you said.

Then please show us a DNA sequence, and then that DNA sequence with new information added to it.

 

[Loudmouth]

my point is that evolutionists falsly tag duplication and alteration as "adding" when it is simply duplication or alteration to the code.

Duplication and alteration is all macroevolution needs to do. It would appear that the process of macroevolution does not require new information.

but we don't have any examples, but yes I agree a very small amount of mutations may be beneficial, but I haven't seen one.

Do you think that among the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps that some of them are beneficial, or do you think all of them are neutral or detrimental.

 

[[serious]]

my point is that evolutionists falsly tag duplication and alteration as "adding" when it is simply duplication or alteration to the code.


but we don't have any examples, but yes I agree a very small amount of mutations may be beneficial, but I haven't seen one.




thanks

You've now had multiple people explain how new, novel functions can be added without losing any existing function. duplication THEN (as in not "or") alteration adds an ADDITIONAL NEW GENE. We've SEEN new function arise. We've seen it both in the lab and in nature. Antibiotic resistance, nylonase, lactase, etc. We also see evidence of exactly this duplication/alteration pairing giving rise to other traits. Why do we have color vision? Duplication of genes that code for light receptive cones followed by alteration leading to some of those cones having response to an alternate wavelength.

 

[createdtoworship]

You've now had multiple people explain how new, novel functions can be added without losing any existing function. duplication THEN (as in not "or") alteration adds an ADDITIONAL NEW GENE. We've SEEN new function arise. We've seen it both in the lab and in nature. Antibiotic resistance, nylonase, lactase, etc. We also see evidence of exactly this duplication/alteration pairing giving rise to other traits. Why do we have color vision? Duplication of genes that code for light receptive cones followed by alteration leading to some of those cones having response to an alternate wavelength.

do you have a peer review detailing this "new gene"?

Because I simply don't believe you.

and remember it needs to be a phd in related field, and also from an instituation that I have approved.

 

[createdtoworship]

Duplication and alteration is all macroevolution needs to do. It would appear that the process of macroevolution does not require new information.



Do you think that among the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps that some of them are beneficial, or do you think all of them are neutral or detrimental.

1 in a million may be of use, and even then long term affects are unknown.

 

[createdtoworship]

You might have a point if that duplication did not undergo mutation. I am fairly sure that sfs could cite you examples of genes that arose from duplication yet had a different use now that they had evolved a bit. You do realize that there is a lot of "junk DNA" in our genome that arose exactly from those processes. The junk DNA does not have a function and your claims could be right for that. Of course then you have the dilemma of "junk DNA" another problem for creationists.




I can name two off of the top of my head. sfs could name more. Oops, three!

Nylonase, the long term Ecoli experiment, and lactose tolerance.

a duplicated gene that becomes altered is still no new info. It's just a shifting of the material that is existing.

you would have to find a peer review or something to convince me that genetic material is added in a mutation.

 

[[serious]]

do you have a peer review detailing this "new gene"?

Because I simply don't believe you.

and remember it needs to be a phd in related field, and also from an instituation that I have approved.

So just to be clear, if I link to a phd s paper about nylonase, you will concede that new genes have been observed? I want you to commit before sending me out.

 

[Loudmouth]

1 in a million may be of use, and even then long term affects are unknown.

Of the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps, you are saying only 40 are beneficial? We are going to need to see evidence of this.

Are you saying that 40 mutations are all that is needed to make humans and chimps look different from each other?

 

[[serious]]

a duplicated gene that becomes altered is still no new info. It's just a shifting of the material that is existing.

you would have to find a peer review or something to convince me that genetic material is added in a mutation.

If it isn't, your definition of information is irrelevant to evolution. Seriously, if a novel gene function can arise without the increase of information, we don't need information for evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

a duplicated gene that becomes altered is still no new info. It's just a shifting of the material that is existing.

Then all we need for macroevolution to occur is shifting of material. No new information needed.

you would have to find a peer review or something to convince me that genetic material is added in a mutation.

Insertion mutations are well known and well understood.

Evolution 101: Types of Mutations

 

[createdtoworship]

So just to be clear, if I link to a phd s paper about nylonase, you will concede that new genes have been observed? I want you to commit before sending me out.

how would I know if I haven't read it?

I just don't believe that any mutation adds genetic material. It simply arranges/changes/duplicates existing material.

 

[createdtoworship]

Of the 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps, you are saying only 40 are beneficial? We are going to need to see evidence of this.

Are you saying that 40 mutations are all that is needed to make humans and chimps look different from each other?

I said maybe, I don't know.

provide some mutations that are beneficial then.

easy fix

 

[createdtoworship]

If it isn't, your definition of information is irrelevant to evolution. Seriously, if a novel gene function can arise without the increase of information, we don't need information for evolution.

you would have to prove that you don't need information for evolution.

I simply don't believe it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then all we need for macroevolution to occur is shifting of material. No new information needed.



Insertion mutations are well known and well understood.

Evolution 101: Types of Mutations

thats changing the bars,

first you said you needed it,

and now you don't.

you are changing the bars based on what I have said.

that is errorsome

 

[[serious]]

how would I know if I haven't read it?

I just don't believe that any mutation adds genetic material. It simply arranges/changes/duplicates existing material.

Will you at least commit to reading it?

 

[createdtoworship]

Will you at least commit to reading it?

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

doesn't say anthing about adding genes, just about gene duplication. Are you sure this nylonase does what you state?

You would again, need documentation.

 

[[serious]]

you would have to prove that you don't need information for evolution.

I simply don't believe it.

But I thought that:

only positive statements need proof.

You wouldn't demand something of us that you won't do yourself, would you?

And speaking of such things, you still have not defined "information". YOu see, my actual point is that for any definition of information for which mutations can't add information, information is unnecessary for evolution.

 

[[serious]]

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

doesn't say anthing about adding genes, just about gene duplication. Are you sure this nylonase does what you state?

You would again, need documentation.

The only thing you see in there is gene duplication? Try reading it again.

This, by the way, is exactly what I'm talking about. The original paper is substantially harder to read than a wikipedia article. If you can't get through a wiki article, you certainly won't be able to handle the paper.

 

[[serious]]

thats changing the bars,

first you said you needed it,

Do you have a quote to back that up?

EDIT: earliest I've seen is him saying the exact same thing he currently is:

You need to show evidence of three things:

1. A definition of new information and a way to measure it.

2. A demonstration that no mutation can ever produce new information.

3. That evolution needs to produce new information in order to produce the biodiversity we see today from a common ancestor.

Notice that according to #3, he was asking you to explain why generation of information was necessary for evolution. The consistent response you've gotten from us has been that for any definition of information which can't arise through mutation, information is irrelevant to evolution or common descent.

Of course, we are still waiting on your definition of information. You've been provided one by us. That is, just a straight sequence storage definition for which each nucleotide codes for 2 bits of information. Since nucleotides can be added, information can be added under this definition

 

[sfs]

look up "do positive statements require burden of proof"

here is one:

The Burden of Proof

That really doesn't help you. The point there is that universal negative claims are unsupportable. Since you can't prove them, there's no burden of proof -- but there's also no point for you to have made the claim in the first place. A more sensible view, I think, is here.

But this is a tangent. Since I do claim that mutation adds information, in any meaningful sense of information, I'm happy to bear the burden of proof.

what is the name of this mutation, or do you have any names or tags at identifying this occurance?

Any insertion or duplication mutation that adds genetic material adds information by my definition. Those mutations happen constantly. For example, some short repetitive stretches of DNA (short tandem repeats) are unstable, and often grow in length. Genes are frequently duplicated. In malaria, duplication of the gene pfMDR1 increase resistance to several drugs, while mutations in humans that increased the number of amylase genes increased the ability of some of us to digest starchy foods.

as far as I can tell, yes some mutations are beneficial (not the majority), but ALL mutations will alter or take away genetic code, not add any thing.

That is trivially false, as every geneticist knows. Since you're making a positive statement here, wouldn't it be good to provide some sort of evidence for your claims?

some evolutionists confuse copying genetic information with adding information.

Copying by itself does add genetic information, by any definition of "information" that I've used. Repeated copying combined with substitutions can take any given sequence and produce absolutely any other sequence. With words, it can take a limerick and turn it into a Shakespearean sonnet. If that isn't adding information to you, then you're going to have to explain what you mean by information, and why we should care about it.