How can mutations add new information?

originally posted by: neoholographic
This makes no sense and it shows that a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy.

The information that can be expressed by proteins is limited by the genetic code. So no matter how many mutations occur, you will never get any new information.

Well that's assuming that our commonly held definition of "mutation" is random, chaotic, and unintended.

Consider this for a moment...
What if mutations are patterns of unfolding, or. Blossoming..
Of a predesignated outcome as in a caterpillar to a butterfly...
In the case of humans... Imagine unlimited ability through Homo sapiens metamorphosis into a "Homo Novus"

Another thing... We don't have to be beholden to "intelligent design's" authors being singular.
Humanity is intelligently designing life as we speak.. And it's not done by one specific individual.

Food for thought.

so, once again a creationist is confusing an argument by changing terms and definitions.

they want different "kinds" or "new information" when it just doesnt work that way.

the base pairs of dna are 4. how they are expressed is the new information. using just 0 and 1 everything on the internet is created. new expression is created all the time. using just 26 letters allows us to change information.

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.

"The protein syncytin, which is essential for formation of the placenta, originally came to the genome of our ancestors, and those of other mammals, via a retrovirus infection." www.virology.ws...

hpv does the same thing, only it creates cancer rather than something useful.

but thats an outside influence. background radiation (about 3 mS per year for the average person) is known to create point mutations. most of these are wiped out by the body, but some slip through. most of these lead to cancer, but some are beneficial or benign. however, those that pass through and dont kill the individual can add up, one piece in a puzzle, leading to vastly different expressions later down the line.

evolution isnt one large change, but a lot of very simple changes that add up over time.

a reply to: schuyler

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

a reply to: prevenge

Your what if scenario of a predesigned outcome is an argument for intelligent design...
Just wondering if you realize that?

a reply to: stormson

More hog wash smoke and mirrors not even a factual claim this is the problem with evolutionists and the followers of this faith based pseudo science...

Always making fantastical claims but when you read on you should be able to see it’s based on conjecture when the truth comes out with the use of words like “likely” which really means the “scientist” is making a guess...

That guy is hoping one day to be proven correct by someone else in the future for credit...
While you already believe him...

I always thought that evolution was more a case of an organism adapting to an environmental change rather than it randomly becoming something completely different.
The mechanics of this are to me less important than the tangible real world differences evident from these changes.
Over a vast period of time these changes can accumulate to the point where the original organism is no longer recognisable.
For example I heard recently that scavenging birds such as crows and magpies have in the last 100 or so years, since the advent of automobiles, undergone changes in the overall structure of thier wings that allow them much greater acceleration from a standstill.
As they spend alot of time scavenging roadkill to eat, to prevent being hit by speeding cars they have to be able to move away much faster than what they would have before cars and trucks ruled the roads(and with roads being the obvious best place to find roadkill!).
To facilitate this new need for speed the bones and shape of thier wings have evolved into a design more suited to thier continued survival.

Anyway I'll see if I can find the original source for this.

As an aside I don't understand why evolution must disprove the existence of an intelligent creator/designer and vise-versa, for me evolution would be the elegant kind of system a truly intelligent creator would devise to facilitate ongoing fine tuning, ensuring every living thing reaches its ultimate potential!

a reply to: neoholographic

The fractal nature of life brings forth greater levels of complexity from the future.

I like this way of thinking about the way life manifests its forms and behaviors:



The idea there is a kind of memory in the pattern of the Universe affecting how life evolves is a very interesting hopefully testable hypothesis.

Of course, this way of thinking is controversial:



Here's another good video on the subject:

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: schuyler

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

Exactly!

How can evolution add any new information to the genome when the code is designed to encode for 20 amino acids? The code accounts for every sequence that can occur and also corrects errors to ensure the code can never be corrupted throughout the population of different species.

Evolution is designed to produce different species including humans. Again, if you code for 20 amino acids and you limit what PP chains fold into proteins, then you know human life will be the result on some planets with the right conditions.

LUCA is seeded on a planet and sometimes you get microbial life, sometimes you just get simple multi-cellular life and sometimes you get intelligent life.

It's like if I give someone 20 marbles each in different colors. You can never add or create anything new. It's just a factorial of those 20 marbles. With DNA, the Designer made it even more restrained because all sequences doesn't fold into proteins. So life populating planets is the purpose of the code.

It now comes down to the environment. LUCA is seeded on some planets and the code can be reproduced faster than the mutations can destroy the organism. On most planets, it's destroyed or limited as to how it can populate a planet by the environment but on some planets it thrives and it leads to intelligent life.

The code has no choice but to lead to intelligent life because the Designer limited what PP chains could be folded into proteins by limiting the code to 20 amino acids.

When people talk about speciation and "new" species, it's a fantasy. If a species has Valine instead of Glycine in a PP chain, it's not anything new, the code only allows for Valine, Glycine or 18 other amino acids to be coded for in a PP chain.

a reply to: neoholographic

This website has really fallen off a cliff. This is old debunked nonsense. Look up the INSERTION mutation. You people have no clue what evolution is or how it works, you just KNOW it's wrong. It's comical. Grow up. Only butthurt babies still fight science in 2019.

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!!!!!!!

OP received correct answers from many already.

I haven't seen adequate proof for the OP's viewpoint, and OP isn't abdicating to answers provided. I'll BRB for edit.

Edit - I've performed gene splicing. Did it in highschool, 2005-2006

Yes parents and boomers, children literally perform genetic engineering labwork, in the classroom, in primary public schools.
I took a protein producing gene, originally produced by a jellyfish, then I injected that gene into bacteria, completely separate species. The bacteria could then produce the same protein the jellyfish did.
(Made green fluorescent protein. Biorad sells lab kits for this exact type of classwork, for students.)

This isn't direct proof that mutation caused our current world observations. It should clean the window of your mind a bit though, that natural genomic mutation is a real, tangible, possibility.

Relevant courses that I took and received favorable grades in - Biotechnology, Molecular Genetics, and AP Biology.

As for the "where did all this information come from?"
Well, where did all this anything come from?
In the words of Carl Sagan "If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the Universe."


Genes mutate, migrate, and procreate.
Combinations there of, are not a stretch with or without direct evidence.

For interesting related information, you may want to look at cell structures of animals and plants. Some organelles, that is, parts of the cell, actually were their own organism at one point. Their entire genetic code was absorbed into the larger creature's cells, and they became part of the new organism, directly. So if two organisms that are not related, can permanently have their genome fused to become one creature, a separate species from either, I want to say this is the best direct argument I have. If an entire organism can end up inside of another's genome, then genes, and mutated genes/proteins/enzymes, etc... doing the same, are no big deal.

DNA isn't fault tolerant 100%. Stuff happens.

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.

You and Barcs are silly fellows, you do not even realize that this is just another case of fraudulent claims made by evolutionists... Try reading of moths and men and there’s one about pandas to, I believe they poke holes in this experiment and provide sufficient evidence to cast serious light on the deliberate attempts made to produce the desired results for Kettlewell’s experiment...
This so called absolute best example for Darwin’s “natural selection” and evolution is just another perfect example of evolutionists deliberate attempts to deceive... The want to be right the false claims of proof always fall short found to be held in serious contention. While those of the evolutionary faith cite such findings as factual.
While in truth have done no such thing...

What’s funnier is how you small minded individuals feel you can silence me by belittling my faith in God while making slanderous accusations of just what exactly I believe... You are as clueless as to my faith as you are of your own...

I do delight in seeing you bray like the ass as you begin your remarks in ignorant bliss though...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
You and Barcs are silly fellows, you do not even realize that this is just another case of fraudulent claims made by evolutionists...

Who knows, maybe they do know but are running with it anyway. Propaganda...it works! Especially if you give it the marketinglabel “Science” and then go on about how people who don't swallow this stuff that eagerly are 'fighting science' and are “butthurt babies” who “have no clue what evolution is or how it works”. These are all blatant reverse appeals to pride that play on people's fears of seeming stupid religious fanatics. A blatant propaganda technique that no one on their side of the fence (in particular thinking about the few who don't use these techniques) seems to feel the need to object to or point out as being an issue or evidence that something suspicious is going on regarding this topic. Or perhaps just acknowledge that it's happening and that it has a detrimental effect on anyone who's seriously trying to figure out the truth of the matter; and it certainly doesn't help the case of those arguing in favor of evolutonary ideas or expressing their beliefs therein while denying their views/opinions/beliefs are based on faith (a synonym for belief), cause that's what they've been conditioned to do regarding that word “faith”.

Anyway, or either way, it's a legitimate point in relation to or evaluation of the evolutionary storyline referred to when someone uses the word “evolution”, to point out that they are still moths. It is irresponsible to assume that the variation of a moth’s color proves that men evolved from fish (as this stuff concerning moths was used as supposed evidence for evolution and therefore is referring to the overarching evolutionary storyline that includes that part). This is simply more evolutionary loose talk. There is constant variation among living things, but the variations do not change what the organisms are.

Will the bush rose ever change into an oak tree simply because there are so many varieties of roses? No, it stays a rose.

Human high jumpers once jumped six feet, but now clear seven. Does this mean they will continue to improve until future generations will high-jump seven miles?

Runners improved until they ran the mile in less than four minutes. Does that prove that in time they will be able to run it in less than four seconds?

No one would contend that such improvement could continue to be made (with the exception of those utterly brainwashed by TV-shows such as Heroes and the superheroes franchises that actually think this stuff is a possibility as a result of evolution, like it is explained in the X-men franchise; the type of people who actually think they can become like the superhero Flash by means of accidental mutations when thinking about the last example above; the type of people whose ability to tell fact from fiction has been severely screwed with). And certainly, whatever limited improvements were made, the athletes would not have turned into different creatures. Neither does it follow that because flies are resistant to poison they will continue varying until they become eagles. Nor will moths continue varying in color until they eventually become pterodactyls.

There is a limit to things. There is a limit to speed. There is a limit to cold. And if we accept what the fossil record is shouting out, there is a limit to variation. Living things vary, but always stay within their kinds. They do not change into something else.

There are many people who question the validity of evolutionary teachings. One such individual who had never considered the “proofs” offered for evolution as final decided to interview people who believe in evolution. Following are some of his observations (in 1974), along with some actual conversations he had in a survey conducted with evolution believers with some pertinent information concerning mutations, since that topic has come up as well here. Although this will take multiple comments to get to the subject of mutations.

“I believe evolution,” a distinguished gentleman told me, “because science has thoroughly investigated the subject and is unanimous in its acceptance of it as fact.”

“You place great trust in scientists,” I observed.

“Their record testifies to their reliability, don’t you think?” he replied.

His reason for believing evolution was echoed many times during my survey. I discovered that most believers of evolution are believers because they have been told that all intelligent people are believers.

An obviously well-educated woman in her forties challenged me with this question: “What are your qualifications to dispute the findings of professional scientists?”

“First,” I answered, “let me say that they dispute among themselves. They argue over when it happened, why it happened, how it happened, how fast it happened, and even if it happened at all!”

“Now,” I continued, “to answer your question about my qualifications. What are the qualifications of a judge who sits on a case involving medical issues in which he is untrained? If he is intelligent and objective, he listens to the arguments of experts pro and con, and then decides on the basis of their testimony. How else can a person make a decision on various fields of knowledge in this age of specialization?”

“But the subject of evolution is so technical,” she protested.

I answered: “Theodosius Dobzhansky [an evolutionary scientist] says that much of the work of scientists is beyond the comprehension of average laymen, but that evolution is not. He says it’s a matter of elementary biology. And George Gaylord Simpson [another prominent evolutionist] contents that it’s immoral to have blind faith, whether in a religious doctrine or in a scientific theory. He also says that it’s man’s responsibility to test the findings of specialists and then decide, and that a person doesn’t have to be a research biologist to evaluate the evidence on evolution.”

“Too many people,” I concluded, “merely accept the opinions of others and repeat their ideas like parrots rather than taking time to examine the facts.”

When she did not comment, I added: “You’d be amazed at how many people who believe evolution know practically nothing about it.”

Intimidation and “Brainwashing”

Before I conducted my house-to-house survey of people who believe in evolution, I read some twenty books written by evolutionists. Even before that, however, for many years since my university days, I had endeavored to keep abreast of scientific developments in this field. But now I specifically examined recent writings of prominent evolutionists.

In doing so I was struck by the type of “browbeating” or “brainwashing” they used. This is typified by the following brief summary from twelve books by eleven different evolutionists:

‘Evolution is universally accepted by scientists competent to judge. It is recognized by all responsible scientists. All reputable biologists agree that it is an established fact. No informed mind today denies that man descended from the fish. It is no longer a matter of doubt.

‘The evidence is overwhelming. No further proof is required by anyone who is free from old illusions and prejudices.’

That is the consensus of all these evolutionary writers. But when claims are so sweeping, so dogmatic, they become suspect.

originally posted by: whereislogic

That is the consensus of all these evolutionary writers. But when claims are so sweeping, so dogmatic, they become suspect.

It seemed to me that evolutionists are trying to scare off opposition and inquiry by using a barrage of intimidating rhetoric.

But why should someone who questions a theory be labeled incompetent, uninformed, a ‘prisoner of old illusions and prejudices’? Would scientists who really have the facts stoop to such unscientific, unreasonable tactics?

True, this “psychological warfare,” this “brainwashing,” does make converts to the evolution belief. But nearly all those converts are usually defenseless when confronted by those who resist the arm twisting and ask for proof.

No Answers

For instance, I asked an intelligent woman in an exclusive neighborhood: “Why do you believe evolution?”

“Because I see it all the time,” she said, and gestured toward her yard. But when I tried to find out some details, her face began to flush, so I tactfully withdrew.

At another door the elderly man who answered my ring said that we adapt to our surroundings, and that these adaptations accumulate over many generations and finally result in new types of living things.

“That isn’t the accepted thought today,” I said. “Your suntan is not passed on to your baby, nor are bulging biceps you’ve developed by weight lifting, nor a knowledge of electronics you’ve acquired through study and experience. Many years ago the evolutionist Lamarck thought this way. So did Darwin. But evolutionists today know that such acquired characteristics are not passed on by means of heredity.”

“Then how else could evolution happen?” he countered.

“That’s for you to say,” I replied. Time and again, I found the same thing to be true. Those who said they believed evolution were totally unable to give reasons, proofs, facts to back up their belief. The main reason for their belief was that scientists believed it and taught it.

On the campus of a large university, a student cited the “fossil record” as proof for evolution. He said that it “traces [for example] the evolution of modern horses from eohippus. Progressive fossils show how it lost toes, lengthened wrists and ankles, evolved new teeth for grazing, and increased in size.”

“You must know,” I replied, “that to give this neat picture, evolutionists have to leave out many of the fossils. They pick only the ones that support their theory, and assume that these are connected to each other.”

“They only simplify it to avoid confusion,” the student said.

I replied: “To avoid confusion they conceal the evidence, and in simplifying they oversimplify to the point of falsification.”

Indeed, that is just what Simpson says, that ‘the oversimplification of the horse fossil record amounts to falsification.’ And naturalist I. Sanderson writes:

“This pleasantly neat evolutionary picture of orderly progression in tooth structures, loss of toes, increase in size, and wrist and ankle elongation has now unfortunately come under grave suspicion.

“So many side-branches have been brought to light, so many intermediary forms are completely lacking that we can now only say that the classic description is no more than a guide to the probable steps by which the modern horse evolved.”

However, the fossil record is still evolution’s “star witness.” As Simpson tells us, “The most direct sort of evidence on the truth of evolution must, after all, be provided by the fossil record.”

Silent on Life’s Origin

However, fossil evidence fails completely to tell us that life evolved the way scientists claim. The facts, the proofs, are missing.

The problem is not new for evolutionists. More than a century ago, the problem existed for Charles Darwin, the “father” of modern evolution. He disposed of the problem in the closing sentence of his Origin of Species by attributing life’s origin to God, saying that life was “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.”

Decades passed. But the evidence refused to be forthcoming. Later, A. C. Seward admitted that the fossil record “tells us nothing of the origin of life.” And to this very day, the situation is the same. True, at times there are sensational announcements by journalists hungry for a headline that the creation of life in the laboratory is imminent. But even if that happened, it would only show that there had to be a Creator, that life does not come into existence by itself.

The fact is that the fossil record remains totally silent about the supposed evolution of microscopic life. A college textbook acknowledges: “We still know little of protozoan [one-celled] evolution.”

A “Burst” of Complex Life Forms

The fossil record’s first testimony that carries any conviction is in what geologists call the Cambrian layers of rock. Before that time the record of the rocks shows unaltered beds for untold ages. But in those older layers, any supposed fossils are rare. Indeed, their validity is hotly disputed among scientists themselves.

But with the Cambrian rocks, fossils burst forth in sudden profusion, in wide variety, highly specialized and very complex. Silent for so long, for most of the record in fact, their star witness, the fossil record, suddenly becomes a chatterbox! I have to ask myself: “Did it have laryngitis all that time previously, or was it that it had nothing to tell?” I think of the words of Simpson, who refers to this sudden “explosion” of myriads of fossils as “this major mystery of the history of life.”

But let us even grant evolutionists the “spontaneous generation” of life that they cannot establish in the fossil record, nor duplicate in laboratories. Grant them that first speck of life that they cannot trace. Grant them also the fantastic advances from that first microscopic life to the sudden bursting forth of thousands upon thousands of highly specialized forms of life in the Cambrian rocks. With all that granted to them, can they look at the fossil record and at least get some answers on how later forms of life supposedly evolved?

When land plants came into being, the fossil record was not silent but was chattering about them. Yet, the fossil record reveals absolutely no “primitive” types as their ancestors. As one authority suggested, evolution believers must simply believe that those supposed ancestors had existed.

Also, there are no fossils of “primitive” insects. Insects appear suddenly in the fossil record, highly developed, and in great numbers, truly a “burst” of insect life in complicated forms. Yet we are told that they must have been evolving for tens of millions of years before then. But what is the basis for saying that?

There is no basis for that assumption​—none. No fossils of all those assumed preliminary stages are to be found. As the 1974 Encyclopædia Britannica confirms: “The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects.” And the only reason that such a long time is given in the development of insects is that the evolution theory demands it. So evolutionists obligingly supply it.

a reply to: whereislogic

The Vertebrates

Does the star witness, the fossil record, tell us any more about the arrival of the vertebrates? These are the animals having a backbone or spinal column.

No, the fossil record is again strangely silent​—strangely, that is, from evolution’s viewpoint. For instance, the fish just appeared. Evolutionists cannot even agree on which ancestor produced it. According to their own reasoning, from the first supposed fish to the first actual fish fossil there is a gap of about one hundred million years. Why a hundred million? Because it was decided that evolution needs that much time to “evolve” something with a backbone.

But in all that time, what ancestor fossils have been found for the vertebrates? Again, the 1974 Encyclopædia Britannica answers: “Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates.” They simply appeared, suddenly, in great variety, and in very complex forms.

However, let us overlook the one-hundred-million-year silence. From fish came amphibians, they say. But, once again, the fossil record is not talking on this crucial point Even the tempting lungfish is dismissed as being no link between fish and amphibians.

Next, according to evolution, came the reptiles, which lay eggs. What does the star witness say about their ancestors? In the book The Reptiles, we read: “One of the frustrating features of the fossil record of vertebrate history is that it shows so little about the evolution of reptiles during their earliest days, when the shelled egg was developing.” And speaking of eggs, after reading such admissions as to the total lack of evidence, I have to conclude that it is evolution that has ‘laid an egg’ here.

The fossil record is still silent when, according to evolutionists, millions of years later some reptiles became mammals and others turned into birds. Simpson admits that for both mammals and birds the fossil record is ‘scanty’ for 75,000,000 years, when the big changes were said to be taking place.

Finally, a quick sampling of the fossil record’s testimony on the evolution of mammals, including man: “Fossils, unfortunately, reveal very little about the creatures which we consider the first true mammals.” (The Mammals, p. 37) “Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. . . . Unfortunately, the early stages of man’s evolutionary progress along his own individual line remain a total mystery.” (The Primates, pp. 15, 177) “Even this relatively recent history [apelike creatures to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details.”​—Mankind Evolving, p. 168.

The Record Is Against Evolution

Without question, the claimed evolution of all these major groups of living things is filled with incredible gaps. Time and again the story is the same: the fossil record is silent on ancestors. In a few cases, this might be understandable. But is it not more than a coincidence when this silence happens in the case of every major category of living things?

Even Darwin long ago lamented the gaps in the fossil record. In fact, he said it was good grounds for rejecting his theory. But he defended his position by impeaching his own star witness. He claimed that the fossil record had been altered, was incomplete, and that many living organisms simply did not leave fossils, particularly those without hard parts. Many evolutionists today rely on the same excuses.

Yet, the truth is that there are many beds of unaltered rock. And there are many fossils of ‘soft parts,’ including skin, worms, jellyfish and feathers. Also, why is the fossil record so full in regard to “completed” life forms, and so empty on the “evolving” stages?

I am compelled to conclude that few sets of facts argue so eloquently against evolution as the fossil record.

Mutations are claimed as evidence for evolution. But are they really? The case for them was energetically argued by an acquaintance of mine.

But before reporting our discussion, I want to mention a practice of his that is similar to the ‘only-the-stupid-don’t believe-evolution’ approach. He is a biology major fresh out of college. His speech is heavily saturated with such foreboding words as homozygous, heterozygous, translocations, inversions, haploid, diploid, polyploid, mitosis, meiosis, deoxyribonucleic acid, and the like.

It was obvious that he reaped satisfaction from the use of such ‘fifty-cent’ words, using them as a sort of mental bullying. However, vocabularies of intimidation do not prove a theory. If anything, they make it more suspect.

Helpful​—or Harmful?

“Mutations cause changes in the genetic material governing heredity,” he told me, adding: “Natural selection preserves the advantageous ones, and as they accumulate over many generations new species evolve.”

“But,” I said, “mutations are blind, random, accidental changes in the genetic material. Can such undirected changes improve highly complex structures of amazingly intricate design?”

He answered: “It’s true that most mutations are harmful, but rarely one is beneficial.” Then he used an illustration found in some evolutionary writings, saying: “It’s like pelting your car with rocks. Most of the time you’ll do damage, but the millionth rock might hit the carburetor just right and improve the adjustment. That’s how mutations work.”

I wondered if I would like to be hit by a million rocks just to get one questionable improvement in my body. So I told him: “Of course, by the time the millionth stone ‘improved’ the carburetor, the 999,999 preceding ones would have smashed the radiator, cracked the battery, knocked loose the wiring, broken the spark plugs, shattered the windshield, broken the instruments on the dashboard and crumpled the body and gas tank.” The next million stones would likely smash the carburetor too!

“No,” he countered, “that’s where natural selection comes in. It would eliminate the damaging mutations.”

“Evolutionists would like to think so,” I said, “but they know better. Most mutations are recessive and accumulate in a genetic pool. They repeatedly crop up in future generations to maim or kill the organisms. It is this accumulating genetic load that many geneticists think causes degeneration, old age and death. Indeed, they fear it is pushing man toward a biological ‘twilight.’”

“The fact is,” I continued, “several pages are used in some books to list the inheritable diseases and deformities caused by the mutations that natural selection fails to eliminate. Some of them are diabetes, anemias, color blindness, hemophilia, deaf-mutism, albinism, clubfoot, harelip, dwarfism, glaucoma, mental retardation . . .”

“But . . .”

I stopped him. “Before you speak, one more point on your stoning-the-car analogy.”

Nothing New, but Only Variations

I continued: “Even if we allow that a rock might accidentally adjust the carburetor, it would never make a new one. It would never turn a two-barreled carburetor into a four-barreled one, or change it over to fuel injection. Mutations can vary the old, but they can’t create the new. Now, what were you going to say?”

“That there are examples of good mutations. You can actually observe evolution taking place.”

He gave three cases. One was the peppered moth.

a reply to: whereislogic

Me again: Which brings us back to the point that it's still a moth and that “it is irresponsible to assume that the variation of a moth’s color proves that men evolved from fish. This is simply more evolutionary loose talk. There is constant variation among living things, but the variations do not change what the organisms are.” Which bring us to another crucial subject and the relevant facts* regarding these variations described by the Law of Recurrent Variation. *: well-established by the evidence

I've been over it quite a few times on this subforum highlighting some key quotations from scientists working in the field of mutation research, but for anyone interested, these 2 articles discuss the subject (the first article does not use the same term but speaks about the same subject of a limited range of recurring variations):

Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?
Evolution—Myths and Facts
Some of the highlights from the first article:

What mechanism is said to be a basis for evolution? ... And foremost among these are the “accidental” changes known as mutations. ...

“Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia.(⁠1) Similarly, paleontologist Steven Stanley called mutations “the raw materials” for evolution.⁠(2) And geneticist Peo Koller declared that mutations “are necessary for evolutionary progress.”⁠(3)

Note that the usage of the word “progress” there contradicts the argument and notion that 'evolution has no direction', that is often used by the fans of evolutionary ideas whenever it is convenient to do so in a conversation about the overall effect and trend of mutations acted upon by natural selection being well-established to be degenerative, degrading, subject to the law of entropy. Since the evidence from the fields of genetics and mutation research contradicts this idea of “evolutionary progress”, they quickly switch to 'evolution has no direction' and hope you've forgotten or won't notice that a lack of evidence for “evolutionary progress” + an abundance of evidence for the opposite of progress = a lack of evidence for evolution + an abundance of evidence that all evolutionary storylines are wrong, period. Don't conveniently change what evolution means to distract from the issue here.

Between brackets is mine:

What type of mutations would be required for evolution?

However, it is not just any kind of mutation that evolution requires. Robert Jastrow pointed to the need for “a slow accumulation of favorable mutations.”(⁠4) And Carl Sagan added: “Mutations​—sudden changes in heredity—​breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival [again, speaking about a direction], resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.”(5)

What difficulty arises with the claim that mutations may be involved in rapid evolutionary changes?

It also has been said that mutations may be a key to the rapid change called for by the “punctuated equilibrium” theory. Writing in Science Digest, John Gliedman stated: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, British zoologist Colin Patterson observed: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.”⁠(6) But aside from such speculations, it is generally accepted that the mutations supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time.

How do mutations originate?

... As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing “of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents.”⁠

Contradicting the argument or point that the use of the description “accidental” is biased and misleading; you may have seen such commentary on this subforum, I have.

... What proportion of mutations are harmful rather than beneficial? ... There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. ... Excluding any “neutral” mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. “Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization,” states the Encyclopædia Britannica.(⁠10) ... Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”⁠(12) When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”⁠(13) They could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage.

Why is it an unwarranted assumption that mutations account for evolution?

In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: “Most mutations are for the worse.” However, he then asserted: “In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.”⁠(14) But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you?

Geneticist Dobzhansky once said: “An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.”⁠(15) Thus, ask yourself: Does it seem 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?

And from there it starts with the stuff I really wanted to quote, but I'm getting way past what one is allowed to quote from an article on another website. One last thing though regarding recurrent variation...

A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety. The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen with a beneficial mutation: “A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water.”⁠ But has a new plant appeared? No, it is still the same plant. It is not evolving into something else.

Mutations may change the color or texture of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers.

a reply to: whereislogic

Me again: Which brings us back to the point that it's still a moth and that “it is irresponsible to assume that the variation of a moth’s color proves that men evolved from fish. This is simply more evolutionary loose talk. There is constant variation among living things, but the variations do not change what the organisms are.” Which bring us to another crucial subject and the relevant facts* regarding these variations described by the Law of Recurrent Variation. *: well-established by the evidence

Note that the usage of the word “progress” there contradicts the argument and notion that 'evolution has no direction', that is often used by the fans of evolutionary ideas whenever it is convenient to do so in a conversation about the overall effect and trend of mutations acted upon by natural selection being well-established to be degenerative, degrading, subject to the law of entropy. Since the evidence from the fields of genetics and mutation research contradicts this idea of “evolutionary progress”, they quickly switch to 'evolution has no direction' and hope you've forgotten or won't notice that a lack of evidence for “evolutionary progress” + an abundance of evidence for the opposite of progress = a lack of evidence for evolution + an abundance of evidence that all evolutionary storylines are wrong, period. Don't conveniently change what evolution means to distract from the issue here.

some interesting notes here, thanks for going to the effort to provide actual arguments instead of ridicule. I feel like it should be pointed out the majority of criticism is in regard to the phrasing of evolution and not the actual evidence in support of the theory. to put it in a word, semantics.

se·man·tics
/səˈman(t)iks/

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

essentially picking on grammar instead of refuting the actual points provided in a discussion. 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.

"Why is it an unwarranted assumption that mutations account for evolution?

In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: “Most mutations are for the worse.” However, he then asserted: “In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.”⁠(14) But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you? "

evolution is not your friend. 999 out of 1000 species no longer exist today because they failed to meet the standards of survival, a typically non negotiable relationship that we have managed to rig to our benefit because we are clever creatures who enjoy stacking the deck and counting cards. this argument is behaving as though evolution is an artificial product and not a natural process that occurs whether we are willing to spend money on it or not. no one buys gravity or sunlight.

"Geneticist Dobzhansky once said: “An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.”⁠(15) Thus, ask yourself: Does it seem 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?"

- we have no experience of the universe's creation or any other universe's creations to compare our own universe to and never will; therefore, it would be illogical to infer that our universe has been created by an intelligent designer in the same way that a watch has

- when the universe first happened, it probably was random and chaotic, but if the universe is eternal, over an unlimited period of time, natural forces could have naturally 'evolved' by random particles coming together over time into the incredibly ordered system we can observe today without the need of an intelligent designer as an explanation

- the comparison to the lucky construction of a watch is fallacious because proponents of evolution do not consider evolution "lucky"

- the watchmaker's creation of the watch implies that the watchmaker must be more complex than the watch. Design is top-down, someone or something more complex designs something less complex. To follow the line upwards demands that the watch was designed by a (necessarily more complex) watchmaker, the watchmaker must have been created by a more complex being than himself (infinite regression)

Here is a good site for you to look at for more information about why the above arguments are illogical. i really dont care to copy and paste everything so browse at your leisure and maybe learn something.

rationalwiki.org...

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: whereislogic

That is the consensus of all these evolutionary writers. But when claims are so sweeping, so dogmatic, they become suspect.

It seemed to me that evolutionists are trying to scare off opposition and inquiry by using a barrage of intimidating rhetoric.

But why should someone who questions a theory be labeled incompetent, uninformed, a ‘prisoner of old illusions and prejudices’? Would scientists who really have the facts stoop to such unscientific, unreasonable tactics?

True, this “psychological warfare,” this “brainwashing,” does make converts to the evolution belief. But nearly all those converts are usually defenseless when confronted by those who resist the arm twisting and ask for proof.

No Answers

For instance, I asked an intelligent woman in an exclusive neighborhood: “Why do you believe evolution?”

“Because I see it all the time,” she said, and gestured toward her yard. But when I tried to find out some details, her face began to flush, so I tactfully withdrew.

At another door the elderly man who answered my ring said that we adapt to our surroundings, and that these adaptations accumulate over many generations and finally result in new types of living things.

“That isn’t the accepted thought today,” I said. “Your suntan is not passed on to your baby, nor are bulging biceps you’ve developed by weight lifting, nor a knowledge of electronics you’ve acquired through study and experience. Many years ago the evolutionist Lamarck thought this way. So did Darwin. But evolutionists today know that such acquired characteristics are not passed on by means of heredity.”

“Then how else could evolution happen?” he countered.

“That’s for you to say,” I replied. Time and again, I found the same thing to be true. Those who said they believed evolution were totally unable to give reasons, proofs, facts to back up their belief. The main reason for their belief was that scientists believed it and taught it.

On the campus of a large university, a student cited the “fossil record” as proof for evolution. He said that it “traces [for example] the evolution of modern horses from eohippus. Progressive fossils show how it lost toes, lengthened wrists and ankles, evolved new teeth for grazing, and increased in size.”

“You must know,” I replied, “that to give this neat picture, evolutionists have to leave out many of the fossils. They pick only the ones that support their theory, and assume that these are connected to each other.”

“They only simplify it to avoid confusion,” the student said.

I replied: “To avoid confusion they conceal the evidence, and in simplifying they oversimplify to the point of falsification.”

Indeed, that is just what Simpson says, that ‘the oversimplification of the horse fossil record amounts to falsification.’ And naturalist I. Sanderson writes:

“This pleasantly neat evolutionary picture of orderly progression in tooth structures, loss of toes, increase in size, and wrist and ankle elongation has now unfortunately come under grave suspicion.

“So many side-branches have been brought to light, so many intermediary forms are completely lacking that we can now only say that the classic description is no more than a guide to the probable steps by which the modern horse evolved.”

However, the fossil record is still evolution’s “star witness.” As Simpson tells us, “The most direct sort of evidence on the truth of evolution must, after all, be provided by the fossil record.”

Silent on Life’s Origin

However, fossil evidence fails completely to tell us that life evolved the way scientists claim. The facts, the proofs, are missing.

The problem is not new for evolutionists. More than a century ago, the problem existed for Charles Darwin, the “father” of modern evolution. He disposed of the problem in the closing sentence of his Origin of Species by attributing life’s origin to God, saying that life was “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one.”

Decades passed. But the evidence refused to be forthcoming. Later, A. C. Seward admitted that the fossil record “tells us nothing of the origin of life.” And to this very day, the situation is the same. True, at times there are sensational announcements by journalists hungry for a headline that the creation of life in the laboratory is imminent. But even if that happened, it would only show that there had to be a Creator, that life does not come into existence by itself.

The fact is that the fossil record remains totally silent about the supposed evolution of microscopic life. A college textbook acknowledges: “We still know little of protozoan [one-celled] evolution.”

A “Burst” of Complex Life Forms

The fossil record’s first testimony that carries any conviction is in what geologists call the Cambrian layers of rock. Before that time the record of the rocks shows unaltered beds for untold ages. But in those older layers, any supposed fossils are rare. Indeed, their validity is hotly disputed among scientists themselves.

But with the Cambrian rocks, fossils burst forth in sudden profusion, in wide variety, highly specialized and very complex. Silent for so long, for most of the record in fact, their star witness, the fossil record, suddenly becomes a chatterbox! I have to ask myself: “Did it have laryngitis all that time previously, or was it that it had nothing to tell?” I think of the words of Simpson, who refers to this sudden “explosion” of myriads of fossils as “this major mystery of the history of life.”

But let us even grant evolutionists the “spontaneous generation” of life that they cannot establish in the fossil record, nor duplicate in laboratories. Grant them that first speck of life that they cannot trace. Grant them also the fantastic advances from that first microscopic life to the sudden bursting forth of thousands upon thousands of highly specialized forms of life in the Cambrian rocks. With all that granted to them, can they look at the fossil record and at least get some answers on how later forms of life supposedly evolved?

When land plants came into being, the fossil record was not silent but was chattering about them. Yet, the fossil record reveals absolutely no “primitive” types as their ancestors. As one authority suggested, evolution believers must simply believe that those supposed ancestors had existed.

Also, there are no fossils of “primitive” insects. Insects appear suddenly in the fossil record, highly developed, and in great numbers, truly a “burst” of insect life in complicated forms. Yet we are told that they must have been evolving for tens of millions of years before then. But what is the basis for saying that?

There is no basis for that assumption​—none. No fossils of all those assumed preliminary stages are to be found. As the 1974 Encyclopædia Britannica confirms: “The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects.” And the only reason that such a long time is given in the development of insects is that the evolution theory demands it. So evolutionists obligingly supply it.

GREAT POST!!

originally posted by: stormson
so, once again a creationist is confusing an argument by changing terms and definitions.

they want different "kinds" or "new information" when it just doesnt work that way.

the base pairs of dna are 4.

There are four bases, but only 2 base pairs. Thymine always bonds with Adenine in one pair and Guanine always bonds with Cytosine in another pair.

how they are expressed is the new information. using just 0 and 1 everything on the internet is created. new expression is created all the time. using just 26 letters allows us to change information.

now try this. a virus infected a cell and added a part of its dna to that cell.

Viruses consist of RNA.

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.

"The protein syncytin, which is essential for formation of the placenta, originally came to the genome of our ancestors, and those of other mammals, via a retrovirus infection." www.virology.ws...

There is a whole issue about the origin of virii as they are entirely dependent upon the DNA replication of other creatures.

Virii can neither arise, or evolve, without other far more complicated DNA engines external to themselves.

How could the sequence come into being in a virus, if virii don't have any mechanism to evolve - no natural selection pressures, no reproduction, no metabolism? Surely it makes more sense that the retrovirus got its code from a more complex creature.

hpv does the same thing, only it creates cancer rather than something useful.

but thats an outside influence. background radiation (about 3 mS per year for the average person) is known to create point mutations. most of these are wiped out by the body, but some slip through. most of these lead to cancer, but some are beneficial or benign. however, those that pass through and dont kill the individual can add up, one piece in a puzzle, leading to vastly different expressions later down the line.

evolution isnt one large change, but a lot of very simple changes that add up over time.

Retroviral horizontal genetic transfer isn't one of the mechanisms of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. It is a clear example of why classical evolutionary frameworks, such as the MES are not giving us the full story and an indicator that there may be as yet undiscovered mechanisms behind genetic diversification.