What is the Evidence of Mutations and New Information

[Guest shiloh357]

If Evolution is true, and birds came from dinosaurs, then what is the evidence that mutations create brand new information in the genes of living organisms causing them to evolve into a completely different species?

[other one]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

If Evolution is true, and birds came from dinosaurs, then what is the evidence that mutations create brand new information in the genes of living organisms causing them to evolve into a completely different species?

I give up..      LoL

[Guest shiloh357]

7 hours ago, other one said:

I give up..      LoL

Give up on what?  

[Guest shiloh357]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Mutations come in tremendous variety. Although most are just a simple change in one of the DNA "letters", there are many other ways in which DNA sequences can be altered from one generation to the next. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be described as "entropy (randomness) is always increasing". Since living organisms will continually undergo mutations as long as they are alive, these random changes are constantly occurring in every cell. Most of these mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful, but as frequently as these changes take place, some will occur that are harmful and a very tiny fraction may provide a benefit to the organism. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not say that no mutations will ever provide a benefit to an organism, only that mutation will occur (entropy at the DNA level).

 

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. Are you asking "how do new genes hypothetically come into being?" or "how do genes hypothetically take on new functions?" These are different (and much better) arguments from the "Second Law" arguments.

What I am saying is that for Evolution  to work, it requires mutations that produce new information that will allow a species to evolve into another species.   So where is the evidence of those mutations?   For life to advance from a primordial soup into the animals and humanity there needs to be new information added to the genes, but when we see genetic mutations it is observed that there is a lessening or removal of existing information, not the addition of new information that did not exist before.

So I am curious where we can observe new information being added to genetic material needed for full-on evolution.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

For life to advance from a primordial soup into the animals and humanity there needs to be new information added to the genes, but when we see genetic mutations it is observed that there is a lessening or removal of existing information, not the addition of new information that did not exist before.

It is absolutely true that most mutations that have an impact on "survivability" are negative, rather than positive. When random changes occur within genomes, it is much more likely that these changes break coding sequences, rather than improving them.

There are, however, examples of mutations that add new functions to the organisms in which they occur. A good example that we are all familiar with is the characteristic of "lactase persistence" in humans. Infant mammals produce an enzyme called lactase in their digestive tracts that can break the disaccharide lactose into two monosaccharides, glucose and galactose. The monosaccharides can be absorbed by the body and used as fuel. In all other mammals, the gene that encodes this enzyme stops working after the young are weened. However, in humans, there are at least three different mutations that have allowed the gene to continue to function even into adulthood (thus, lactase persistence). Of course, there are a lot of humans that don't have these mutations and are therefore lactose intolerant.

An example of a not-so-familiar event, but one adding a brand new function is the mutations that have generated an enzyme called nylonase. Nylon is a synthetic polymer that was invented in 1935 and has a chemical structure that is very resistant to breakdown by naturally-occurring enzymes. However, in the 1970s, a group of scientists in Japan discovered that a strain of bacteria produced an enzyme capable of breaking down nylon into smaller chemicals that could then be used by the bacteria (http://www.pnas.org/content/81/8/2421.long). Logically, the gene encoding this enzyme would have come into being only AFTER the invention of nylon.

Now, this is not an example of an entirely new gene, but a good example of mutations altering an existing gene to adapt to a changing environment. The study of new gene formation is relatively new, but there are examples of that, as well (https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/08/31/gr.095026.109.short).

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It is absolutely true that most mutations that have an impact on "survivability" are negative, rather than positive. When random changes occur within genomes, it is much more likely that these changes break coding sequences, rather than improving them.

There are, however, examples of mutations that add new functions to the organisms in which they occur. A good example that we are all familiar with is the characteristic of "lactase persistence" in humans. Infant mammals produce an enzyme called lactase in their digestive tracts that can break the disaccharide lactose into two monosaccharides, glucose and galactose. The monosaccharides can be absorbed by the body and used as fuel. In all other mammals, the gene that encodes this enzyme stops working after the young are weened. However, in humans, there are at least three different mutations that have allowed the gene to continue to function even into adulthood (thus, lactase persistence). Of course, there are a lot of humans that don't have these mutations and are therefore lactose intolerant.

An example of a not-so-familiar event, but one adding a brand new function is the mutations that have generated an enzyme called nylonase. Nylon is a synthetic polymer that was invented in 1935 and has a chemical structure that is very resistant to breakdown by naturally-occurring enzymes. However, in the 1970s, a group of scientists in Japan discovered that a strain of bacteria produced an enzyme capable of breaking down nylon into smaller chemicals that could then be used by the bacteria (http://www.pnas.org/content/81/8/2421.long). Logically, the gene encoding this enzyme would have come into being only AFTER the invention of nylon.

Now, this is not an example of an entirely new gene, but a good example of mutations altering an existing gene to adapt to a changing environment. The study of new gene formation is relatively new, but there are examples of that, as well (https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/08/31/gr.095026.109.short).

That makes my point.  There is no evidence for actual, full-on evolution.  Changes in a species are a given.  No one is disputing that.   What evolutionists need, but cannot provide is actual evidence that mutations provide entirely new information that leads to an entirely new species evolved from the old.  The issue of mutations is not friendly to the Theory of Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution was first introduced BEFORE there was any evidence to support it.   What is happening now is evidence is being interpreted through the lens of an assumption that Evolution is true.  Again, that is not science.

If the idea Evolution were first introduced today, given what scientists know about the immense complexity of DNA and the single cell, it would not get off of the ground.  The more that is learned, the more time that is required for Evolution and that is an inherent weakness in the theory.

[enoob57]

Evolution is a dead stick to anyone who is willing to let the evidence guide instead of investment of learning and presupposing on past builds….

[other one]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Give up on what?  

what the evidence is....   I've looked for it for years.   if it's there is sure is being hidden well.

[enoob57]

8 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Stick or Shtick?

 

shtick

SHtik/

noun

informal

1. a gimmick, comic routine, style of performance, etc., associated with a particular person.

   "there are many great comics who have based their stand-up shtick on observational comedy"

   • a person's special talent, interest, or area of activity.

     "movies about ordinary women who do extraordinary things—that's my shtick"

 

well I was thinking of a direction controller but  this works as well …. the smaller I become the bigger God 'IS' 

[other one]

My personal take on the problem is that God made living matter....   switched a bunch of genes on and he had a cow.....    switched another bunch and had a horse and carried it out over the whole of genetically controlled life.....    a really simple quick way of creating things...     

When we look at things it appears on the surface that the genes changed themselves over time and when you are looking for a way to keep God out of the picture it is easy to accept the evolution thing...…    problem is as Shiloh shoes there really isn't anything to prove that the changes were not instant when God made the place

Lets me deal with all the confusion about it and sleep well at night.