How can mutations add new information?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

...i am also having difficulty tracking down exactly which materials were used to provide relevant input from the experts named in the article, which is a fascinating obstacle given how detailed the content is, yet no sources.

References Listed by Chapter

It's chapter 8, the numbers correspond.

Do you have anything to say about the well-established reality that mutations are degenerative and destructive even after natural selection (or even artificial intelligent selection in the field of induced mutation breeding) and in the long term (the projection based on* this entropic reality that already considers or includes the effect of natural selection on those mutations)? Making the arguments that natural selection somehow makes the evolutionary process less random, less accidental, less lucky, less destructive or not destructive but a process of improvement and (evolutionary) progress, null and void. *: or extrapolated from (evolutionists extrapolate an upward, improving, evolutionary progress from the process of mutations acted upon by natural selection while all the evidence shows the exact opposite; and why the need for some people to quickly switch to 'evolution has no direction', any type of change over time will do to qualify as “evolution” supposedly. If there is no issue with the evidence regarding the long-term effect of mutations acted upon by natural selection, why the need to go there and make those type of arguments?)

Note that it's the prominent evolutionist Dobzhansky who brings up a watch. But as an example to point out that an accidental process “can hardly be expected to improve” “any delicate mechanism”. As that is still what the claim is from evolutonists like him regarding the machinery and delicate mechanisms in living organisms improving by means of mutations acted upon by natural selection, i.e. evolution. Are you willing to consider whether or not it seems reasonable that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down?

Rather than cycle through the arguments against creation that most here will have probably heard before as I have many times? And some have already responded to many times, as I have. It gets a bit monotonous.

Just to be clear that I'm not making up this phrase and argument that 'evolution has no direction', and because I had nothing better to do, I googled it. Here are some results:

Why Evolution Has No Goal | Crucial Considerations - a science, philosophy, rationality & ethics blog

...Even if one doesn’t view humans as some kind of “end product”, one might still believe that evolution is operating according to some higher purpose, or that it necessarily strives into a particular direction. More complexity, harmony, progress or some kind of plan that needs to be adhered to. But all of that, too, is mistaken.

And yet, the other evolutionary gurus and promoters use the term “evolutionary progress”. Among the other clear ways of talking about an “onward and upward” direction that improves an organisms survivability (“enhance survival”).

The five most common misunderstandings about evolution (phys.org; comment by)

Drjsa_oba:

Misconception - evolution has a purpose or direction.

Evolution is change over time. Take the English language for example - it evolves over time.

Sometimes words are added or removed and sometimes words change meaning or spelling. This is evolution at work. The language still functions and everybody locally still understands each other enough to get by. The language evolves differently in different locations and if they stayed isolated long enough they would have enough differences that it could be a different language.

Ahh, the good old 'language changing over time is evolution at work', giving some people the impression one has just provided evidence for evolution being a fact (with the added connotation of all biological evolutionary storylines, since that was the subject of that page). In particular to those who don't notice you just changed the subject to merely any sort of change over time, but, I guess we're not allowed to be picky about the meaning of words and convenient changes of the subject like that, then we're arguing or playing semantics.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: schuyler

All the white moths were eaten...evolution had nothing to do with it...

Baaahahahahahahahahaaaa! So natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. You heard it hear first, folks! Guess it's time to pack it up and admit that Jeebus was real and the bible is literal and the earth is 6000 years old. You totally convinced me. LMFAO!!!!!!!

Natural selection alone is not evolution.

It introduces no genetic change.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: schuyler

All the white moths were eaten...evolution had nothing to do with it...

Baaahahahahahahahahaaaa! So natural selection has nothing to do with evolution. You heard it hear first, folks! Guess it's time to pack it up and admit that Jeebus was real and the bible is literal and the earth is 6000 years old. You totally convinced me. LMFAO!!!!!!!

The best part is that in some people’s fervor to take a dump on science that is obviously way above their heads, they exclude facts that apply to their idiotic statements. In this case, there were zero reports of black peppered moths prior to 1811. I guess god just poofed them into existence to mess with us and the poor hungry birds 200 years ago. Such a demonstration of raw biblical power there.

There wasn't any description prior to 1811 but there is an actual specimen from 1811 in the University of Oxford's collection, so it is likely that they were around.

Even Kettlewell's earliest papers noted that there was a small portion of the Peppered moth population that was black.

a reply to: neoholographic

There's nothing new only variations allowed by the code.

Adaptation seen as Microevolution, but you are saying that mutation can't cause Macroevolution ?

a reply to: whereislogic

Thanks for clearing up the matter of citations and sources.

Note that it's the prominent evolutionist Dobzhansky who brings up a watch. But as an example to point out that an accidental process “can hardly be expected to improve” “any delicate mechanism”. As that is still what the claim is from evolutonists like him regarding the machinery and delicate mechanisms in living organisms improving by means of mutations acted upon by natural selection, i.e. evolution. Are you willing to consider whether or not it seems reasonable that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes that exist in living things were built up by a procedure that tears down?

"It doesn't seem reasonable" is not an argument. Because what I consider unreasonable, you consider unavoidable. Yet there are taxonomy trees and DNA samples and geological records and fossils and much more to inform my understanding of how these ideas were built upon centuries of carefully studied disciplines that have proven not just useful, but honorable in their dependable stubborn truths. Playing word games doesn't change that, nor does it distract me from the fact that you failed to answer any of my points from my previous post. You respond to me but ignore what I say? Smdh

a reply to: TzarChasm

Who built the structure you live in ?

Maybe you do know or maybe you don't ?

That doesn't change that every structure/apartment/condo/house has somebody who built it.
The planet is a structure for life to live here, and it has a builder just like any house.

Hebrews 3:4

Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.

Scientific propaganda has blinded so many people to this simple truth. The OP just tried to show through science why the no creator/builder theory doesn't work.

a reply to: neoholographic

What about cancer that is a mutation which causes cells to forget how to die.:

a reply to: peter vlar

Then again, and perhaps it's just due to ignorance of the fact, not all opposition to Darwinian theory comes from fervent religious zealots, people whose heads the data flies over, or the exclusion of facts or idiocy.

David Berlinski falls into none of the referenced categories:


Nor do any of the signatories at The Dissent from Darwin site, given required qualifications:

Signatories of the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism must either hold a Ph.D. in a scientific field such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, computer science, or one of the other natural sciences; or they must hold an M.D. and serve as a professor of medicine. Signatories must also agree with the following statement: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

The experts in their respective fields are, I would hazard to say, much more qualified than most of our very vocal ATS members, and a good number of them have found many of the "indisputable!" tenets of current evolutionary theory utterly laughable given the outside insights on involved claims.

Just figured it best to get this out there given the claim that only unschooled ignorants see flaws with evolutionary theory. Apparently quite a few PhDs in some pretty relevant fields take issue with that view.

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast
a reply to: neoholographic

What about cancer that is a mutation which causes cells to forget how to die.:

...how exactly does this lead to the introduction of new information? Runaway machinery doesn't tend to create more elaborate technologies.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: neoholographic

There's nothing new only variations allowed by the code.

Adaptation seen as Microevolution, but you are saying that mutation can't cause Macroevolution ?

The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. (Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Mutations,” by H. J. Muller, 1946, p. 162.)

Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations (variations) in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species (or new families of plants and animals)? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.” In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species. (Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, “Expectations in Mutation Breeding,” 2005, p. 48, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.)

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.” (Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 48-51.) And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”* (*: Mutation experiments repeatedly found that the number of new mutants steadily declined, while the same type of mutants regularly appeared. In addition, less than 1 percent of plant mutations were chosen for further research, and less than 1 percent of this group were found suitable for commercial use. However, not one entirely new species was ever created. The results of mutation breeding in animals were even worse than in plants, and the method was abandoned entirely.)

Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.)

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

Myth: Natural selection led to the creation of new species.

Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, whereas less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose the ones with gene mutations that made them capable of surviving in their new environment. As a result, evolutionists speculate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.

The facts: As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States refers to “the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.” (Science and Creationism—A View From the National Academy of Sciences, “Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution,” 1999, p. 10.)

In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter R. and B. Rosemary Grant of Princeton University began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought on the islands, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since observing the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the NAS brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.” (Science and Creationism—A View From the National Academy of Sciences, “Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution,” p. 11.)

However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention that in the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. The researchers found that as the climatic conditions on the island changed, finches with longer beaks were dominant one year, but later those with smaller beaks were dominant. They also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. They concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one. (Scientific American, “Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches,” 1991, p. 87; Nature, “Oscillating Selection on Darwin’s Finches,” 1987, p. 511; Science, “Hybridization of Bird Species,” 1992, pp. 193-197)

a reply to: Blue_Jay33
[continuing from last comment]

So, does natural selection really create entirely new species? Decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power. (Adaption and Natural Selection, by George C. Williams, 1966, p. 54.) In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new. (Sudden Origins—Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species, by Jeffrey H. Schwartz, 1999, pp. 317-320.)

Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, information about these birds exposes the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.

Coming back to that term “Oscillating” that I bolded at the end of my last comment for a moment, cause it relates to the subject of recurrent variation and the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (they stay finches for example, recurrent variations of finches) Also coming back to the topic of the peppered moths.

Did the peppered moth evolve into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.” (On Call, July 3, 1972, p. 9.) Yet, apparently, it's still popular on ATS for that exact purpose in 2019. Propaganda...it works! Especially if you label it as “Science” (and then use the phrase “Science... it works!” plenty of times; how does the saying go regarding effective propaganda? 'If you repeat a lie often enough people will begin to believe it'. Something like that.)

The inaccurate claim that the peppered moth is evolving is similar to several other examples. For instance, since some germs have proved resistant to antibiotics, it is claimed that evolution is taking place. But the hardier germs are still the same type, not evolving into anything else. And it is even acknowledged that the change may have been due, not to mutations, but to the fact that some germs were immune to begin with. When the others were killed off by drugs, the immune ones multiplied and became dominant. As Evolution From Space says: “We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes.”⁠ (by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 5.)

The same process may also have been the case with some insects being immune to poisons used against them. Either the poisons killed those insects on which they were used, or they were ineffective. Those killed could not develop a resistance, since they were dead. The survival of others could mean that they had been immune at the start. Such immunity is a genetic factor that appears in some insects but not in others. In any event, the insects remained of the same kind. They were not evolving into something else.

The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”

Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”⁠ (On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 8, 9.)

Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].” (Science, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” by Roger Lewin, November 21, 1980, p. 884.) So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1) stability and (2) limited ranges of variation.

Thus, the book Molecules to Living Cells states: “The cells from a carrot or from the liver of a mouse consistently retain their respective tissue and organism identities after countless cycles of reproduction.”⁠ And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution says: “All life . . . reproduces with incredible fidelity.”⁠ Scientific American also observes: “Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation.”⁠ And a science writer commented: “Rose bushes always blossom into roses, never into camellias. And goats give birth to kids, never to lambs.” He concluded that mutations “cannot account for overall evolution​—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.”⁠ (Molecules to Living Cells, “Simple Inorganic Molecules to Complex Free-Living Cells,” Scientific American, Section I, introduction by Philip C. Hanawalt, 1980, p. 3.; Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, by Lynn Margulis, 1981, p. 87.; Scientific American, “The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus,” by Edouard Kellenberger, December 1966, p. 32.; Los Angeles Times, “Fishing for Evolution’s Answer,” by Irving S. Bengelsdorf, November 2, 1967.)

The matter of variation within a kind explains something that influenced Darwin’s original thinking about evolution. When he was on the Galápagos Islands he observed a type of bird called a finch. These birds were the same type as their parent kind on the South American continent, from where they apparently had migrated. But there were curious differences, such as in the shape of their beaks. Darwin interpreted this as evolution in progress. But actually it was nothing more than another example of variety within a kind, allowed for by a creature’s genetic makeup. The finches were still finches. They were not turning into something else, and they never would.

Thus, what Genesis says is in full harmony with scientific fact. When you plant seeds, they produce only “according to their kinds,” so you can plant a garden with confidence in the dependability of that law. When cats give birth, their offspring are always cats. When humans become parents, their children are always humans.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33
[continuing]
...When humans become parents, their children are always humans. There is variation in color, size and shape, but always within the limits of the kind. Have you ever personally seen a case that was otherwise? Neither has anyone else.

The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind. As French biologist Jean Rostand once said: “No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips’ of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations.’”⁠ (The Orion Book of Evolution, by Jean Rostand, 1961, p. 79.)

Similarly, geneticist C. H. Waddington stated regarding the belief in mutations: “This is really the theory that if you start with any fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare. . . . it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better.” (Science Today, “Evolution,” by C. H. Waddington, 1961, p. 38.)

The truth is as Professor John Moore declared: “Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . . that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth.”⁠ (On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny, by John N. Moore, December 27, 1971, p. 5.)

Bringing us back to:

“Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia. Similarly, paleontologist Steven Stanley called mutations “the raw materials” for evolution.⁠ And geneticist Peo Koller declared that mutations “are necessary for evolutionary progress.”⁠ (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 13, p. 809.; The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 65.; Chromosomes and Genes, by Peo C. Koller, 1971, p. 127.)

Pure fantasy. Conveniently disregarding, dissing, ignoring and distracting people from all the evidence that contradicts it and conclusively proves these statements to be mythological and wrong. There's no ambiguity here. But some people are manufacturing it anyway and pretending it's there so they can continue their money-making scam that they've built an entire career around.

The previously mentioned NAS brochure (when I was discussing finches) leaves the reader with the impression that the fossils found by scientists more than adequately document macroevolution. It declares: “So many intermediate forms have been discovered between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, and along the primate lines of descent that it often is difficult to identify categorically when the transition occurs from one to another particular species.” (Science and Creationism—A View From the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, “Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution,” p. 14.)

The facts: The confident statement made by the NAS brochure is quite surprising. Why? Niles Eldredge, a staunch evolutionist, states that the fossil record shows, not that there is a gradual accumulation of change, but that for long periods of time, “little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species.”* (The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, by Niles Eldredge, 2000, pp. 49, 85.)
*: Even the few examples from the fossil record that researchers point to as proof of evolution are open to debate.

To date, scientists worldwide have unearthed and cataloged some 200 million large fossils and billions of small fossils. Many researchers agree that this vast and detailed record shows that all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged, with many species disappearing as suddenly as they arrived.

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”* Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (The New York Review of Books, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” by Richard C. Lewontin, January 9, 1997, pp. 28-32.)
*: “Materialism,” in this sense, refers to a theory that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process.

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.” (Scientific American, “Scientists and Religion in America,” by Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, September 1999, p. 91.)

If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of blind overly zealous and indoctrinated “faith.” Not to mention it defies reason and well-established realities/facts/truths/certainties.

a reply to: whereislogic

It's true the forced mutations onto fruit flies to see if those would stick, never did, they were either so mutated their genetic code was broken so they could not reproduce, or the DNA/RNA self corrected back to it's original form.
If anything those experiments prove mutations don't help evolution at all.

originally posted by: stormson


now try this. a virus infected a cell and added a part of its dna to that cell. this is a mutation. this mutation allowed for the development of the placenta, an essential function of all mammals. new information from the virus to the dna structure of that cell, allowed new expression of the base 4 pair.

This is a great example of the blind faith that evolutionists have for their theory. How could a mutation, or new protein for that matter, drastically change the developmental morphology of an organism to allow a placental cavity that includes all the necessary components to hold a developing fetus for a prolonged period of time, providing it a homeostatic blend of necessary nutrients and also having the proper muscles to eject the baby when its time comes?

To think such a mechanism could be created by a random mutation or nucleic acid chain insertion is absolutely unfounded in scientific literature. Evolutionary theory thrives in ambiguity. Once you learn more about the immense biological complexity at every level you will realize that random changes to genetic sequence will never be able to muster such a vast leap in complexity.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: neoholographic

There's nothing new only variations allowed by the code.

Adaptation seen as Microevolution, but you are saying that mutation can't cause Macroevolution ?

The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. (Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Mutations,” by H. J. Muller, 1946, p. 162.)
...

Not only new species in name for example. As in the case of Darwin's finches, just calling it a new species (damned if anyone is going to object that they're all still finches). It's supposed to be able to produce entirely new familes of plants and animals. In no way are Darwin's supposed multiple species of finches* a good example for that part of the evolutionary storyline and claim. *: As evolutionists would like to classify them contradicting their own statements as to what classifies as a single species and muddying the waters regarding how one should classify a single species because some of them are interbreeding.

What they label as microevolution, or even so-called 'speciation', cannot be honestly extrapolated into what they refer to as macroevolution. Conveniently ignoring all the evidence that shows how the long-term trend and effects of mutations acted upon by natural selection can be calculated and estimated (a downward destructive trend as explained before, along with oscillation about a mean and a limited range of variations), i.e., extrapolated from the available evidence in mutation research and the rather extensive (induced) mutation breeding research and general breeding research (including so-called “hybrid species”). Note that regarding the last field of research the term “oscillation about a mean” was used, another indication of a limited range of variation, highlighting another aspect of it.

All the research involved with Darwin's finches also demonstrates that they are oscillating about a mean and limited in their range of variations (subject to the Law of Recurrent Variation, they can only reproduce after their kind just like Genesis says). This does not match the requirements for the overarching teaching of evolution that requires what they call macroevolution, which is built on the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. The evidence regarding Darwin's finches does however nicely match the Genesis account. The evidence speaks for itself, as people say. Although that phrase is perhaps a bit too figurative for me.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

Playing word games doesn't change that, nor does it distract me from the fact that you failed to answer any of my points from my previous post. You respond to me but ignore what I say? Smdh

There's not much one can answer in response to red herrings or someone avoiding the issue: the main issues brought forward in my commentary regarding the long term effect of mutations acted upon by natural selection being “destructive rather than ... constructive” ( Encyclopedia Americana), as evidenced by extensive research in this area; and how the evidence compares with the claims, suggestions and implications made by evolutionists and some in this thread that it is constructive rather than destructive: “In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.” —Isaac Asimov; that implies that it's a constructive process⁠ that leads to the earlier mentioned “evolutionary progress”, which is what one obviously requires in a storyline that supposedly starts with so-called “simple” single-celled organisms and leads to mankind and all the other kinds of multi-cellular life, one also can't be oscillating about a mean if one wants to get there*, one must propose a constructive mechanism or process and not point to a destructive process and claim it's still evidence in spite of the reality that it's destructive and therefore blows any such behaviour out of the water).

The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic.

Source: Logical Fallacies » Red Herring

While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Source: Red Herring
Don't know whether you were just avoiding the issue or using a red herring, so I just re-summarized the original argument in my response. Not much more one can do in such situations.

*: I already alluded to how the topic of recurrent variation relates to the topic of the long term (long run) effect of mutations acted upon by natural selection, in the comment you originally responded to. I have now done so in much more detail in my latest commentary and how it too demonstrates the claims in regards to how the required onward and upward evolutionary progress for the evolutionary storyline is achieved by mutations acted upon by natural selection, to be wrong; whatever, I completely messed up that sentence syntax. It just became longer and longer. I think those who want to understand will get the gist of it. Some interesting quotations from experts in the field of mutation research, biology, mutation breeding and genetics (not sure, but I think all of these are adherents to and on occasion promoters or teachers of some version of some evolutionary storyline, either gradual or jumpy, with mutations as a basis or some other yet to be discovered mechanism or process, possibly guiding those mutations towards a predetermined outcome, that sort of thing; there are too many wishful speculations to count), regarding the topics of recurrent variation and mutation breeding, from Lönnig's website with the German publication of his paper that I've been talking about:

All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.

William R. Fix

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila, in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.

Richard B. Goldschmidt

Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

Pierre-Paul Grassé

(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations: ) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.

Lynn Margulis

originally posted by: TzarChasm
"It doesn't seem reasonable" is not an argument.

Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene's function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.Lönnig ...]. However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science.

Christian Schwabe

Source: W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation

Schwabe earned his PhD in 1965 in biochemistry. He was a professor of biochemistry at Harvard Medical School up until 1971.

I doubt btw, that if you really knew what an argument was, if you would admit to it. Nor whether or not there's a need for every question one raises to be an argument, as if only rhetorical questions are allowed in a rational conversation about the topics of evolution and mutations. I guess I no longer have to doubt if that is what you prefer to argue, whether or not I made an argument. Or that I'm playing word games, etc. Cycling through your straw man arguments* for creation and addressing those instead. Anything to distract from the issue here.

*: e.g., the word “lucky” was never even used in the comment you were responding to, you just brought that up so you could make the point that “proponents of evolution do not consider evolution "lucky"”, you wanted to stay as far away from the actual point being made there by Dobzhansky about “An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it.” And the related claims from evolutionists that actually make that claim regarding accidental mutations in the long run (thus after being acted upon by natural selection) , as they term it. Couldn't even say “accidental” anymore cause that door was already closed. Just keep on being vague that your real argument (or thinking) is actually that natural selection somehow takes away the accidental attribute and resulting destructive effect of (what has been attributed to be the main process or mechanism of) evolution. Which is contradicted by all the research and facts that have been discovered in the last 100 years in this area.

a reply to: TzarChasm

No doubt you are also aware that Theodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky was a prominent Ukrainian-American geneticist and evolutionary biologist, and a central figure in the field of evolutionary biology for his work in shaping the modern synthesis.

He was a Kingpin amongst the gurus of evolutionary philosophies. He himself seems to adhere (or raises no significant objection) to the notion that accidental mutations acted upon by natural selection can improve the delicate mechanisms and machinery that govern all life, from uni-cellular organisms to all the multi-cellular life that exists today. A clear direction that involves the 'building up' or 'construction' of entirely new machinery, new systems of machinery, new cell types, new organs, body structures, etc. (Thus it's only logical to ask: “Does it seem reasonable that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes that exist in living things were built up [or constructed] by a procedure that tears down [or is destructive]?” In order to evaluate this proposed scenario.)

Even though he basically admits there in that quotation that you responded to, that such a scenario could "hardly be expected" (which matches well with the description or conclusion that it's “not reasonable”). That's about as much as you can get out of these types, and then they probably won't even admit that that's exactly what they're proposing happened. They might even twist it in such a manner that one actually begins to believe that that's not what they are proposing (because of natural selection for example, a bit of a difficult point I want to raise here, nvm; it comes back to this notion of evolution being guided/directed by natural selection, therefore not accidental, not truly random, lucky or exempting evolving or mutating organisms from being subject to the law of entropy, whichever terminology or argument they fancy at the time, related to the 'forbidden words' list).

Is "lucky" now on the forbidden words list even if it isn't actually used? Or does it have to be pointed out that it's on the list even though it wasn't used? Not sure how to put that. It's too weird anyway to switch to "lucky" in the response.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

evolution.berkeley.edu...

These links talk about genetic devices that can cause alterations to DNA and add information that is heritable, resulting in evolution.

a reply to: chr0naut

What this also says is that you can't have more than the upper limit. To add new information, in the form of a new and previously 'un-coded for protein', requires that you throw away the whole idea of a three base pair codon length entirely. This would make no mathematical sense and also have no precedent or evidentiality in nature.

This simply is not true. Non-coding DNA can evolve to produce new proteins - i.e NEW INFORMATION.

To the OP: You're so far behind the research curve that you should be embarrassed to write such a misguided post.

Random Non-Coding DNA Can Quickly Evolve to Produce New Proteins
March 12, 20190

A team led by scientists from the University of Chicago (UChicago) has published a study (“Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza“) in Nature Ecology and Evolution that challenges one of the classic assumptions about how new proteins evolve. The research shows that random, noncoding sections of DNA can quickly evolve to produce new proteins. These de novo, or from scratch, genes provide a new, unexplored way that proteins evolve and contribute to biodiversity, according to the scientists. “Using a big genome comparison, we show that noncoding sequences can evolve into completely novel proteins. That’s a huge discovery,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, the Edna K. Papazian distinguished service professor of ecology and evolution at UChicago and senior author of the new study. “New protein-coding genes that arise de novo from noncoding DNA sequences contribute to protein diversity. However, de novo gene origination is challenging to study as it requires high-quality reference genomes for closely related species, evidence for ancestral noncoding sequences, and transcription and translation of the new genes.

High-quality genomes of 13 closely related Oryza species provide unprecedented opportunities to understand de novo origination events. Here, we identify a large number of young de novo genes with discernible recent ancestral noncoding sequences and evidence of translation,” wrote the investigators.

“The new proteins may make certain functions better, or help regulate the genes better,” he said. “Each step of the way, they can bring some kind of benefit to the organism until it gradually becomes fixed in the genome.”

www.genengnews.com...

I think the OP should take up golf or something to ease the pain in his head.

NEW INFORMATION FOLKS!! Here it is - come and get it if you dare.

a reply to: Phantom423

P.S. There are at least a dozen research papers describing how new information is generated through the evolutionary process. And there's no upper limit as to how far, how wide, how long or how much new information can be generated.

Genomes can expand, contract, fuse with other genomes, pick up a myriad of new acquisitions which allow the genome to produce NEW INFORMATION. The new, inheritable genome, heretofore not in existence produces what - NEW INFORMATION!

Gorillas and humans have similar genomes. Why are humans not gorillas? OMG! NEW INFORMATION acquired by mutation!
Why can't humans turn back into gorillas. Well actually they can. Look it up.