The Theory of Evolution

[vicsinad]

My question is, is this something you just invented or is there a larger following to this "no new information is needed" claim?

Something I've asked you several times: please define what you mean by "new information". Precisely.

[vicsinad]

Mutations produce new genes but these mutations do not produce new animals. The genes produced from mutations are very limited within the realm of micro-evolution.

To produce new animals requires new information -- new genes and proteins. And to produce one novel gene and protein by chance is virtually impossible even over a span of hundreds of millions of years.

First you say that mutations produce new genes. Then you say that these new genes do not produce new animals. Finally you say that to produce new animals you need new genes.

By logic, then: mutations produce new animals because mutations produce new genes. Or is it that new genes don't produce new animals?

[Philosopher]

First you say that mutations produce new genes. Then you say that these new genes do not produce new animals. Finally you say that to produce new animals you need new genes.

By logic, then: mutations produce new animals because mutations produce new genes. Or is it that new genes don't produce new animals?

To borrow a phrase you used (I believe), I will “dumb it down” as much as possible. Mutations produce new genes. These new genes, however, cannot produce new species. They only produce variations within existing species. New information is required – more information than mutations can possibly produce by chance over hundreds of millions of years – to produce new genes and new proteins to support the production of new species.

Note the following:

Nevertheless, this question-begging assumption does not solve the central problem posed by Darwin's Doubt -- that of the origin of the genetic (and epigenetic) information necessary to produce the Cambrian animals. It merely pushes the problem back several tens or hundreds of millions of years, assuming that such a universal genetic toolkit ever existed. (Marshall also makes no attempt to rebut my argument about the inability of the mutation/selection mechanism to generate new epigenetic information, a problem that has led other prominent evolutionary biologists to express skepticism about the adequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanism.19) In any case, Marshall does not explain how the neo-Darwinian mechanism could have overcome the combinatorial search problem described in Darwin's Doubt to produce even the new genetic information necessary to build new proteins and Cambrian animals.

And again:

Readers will also recall that the rarity of functional genes and proteins within sequence space makes it overwhelmingly more likely than not that a series of random mutation searches will fail to generate even a single new gene or protein fold within available evolutionary time. This extreme rarity also helps to explain why mathematical biologists, using standard population genetics models, are calculating exceedingly long waiting times (well in excess of available evolutionary time) for the production of new genes and proteins when producing such genes or proteins requires even a few coordinated mutations.20

[vicsinad]

To borrow a phrase you used (I believe), I will “dumb it down” as much as possible. Mutations produce new genes. These new genes, however, cannot produce new species. They only produce variations within existing species. New information is required – more information than mutations can possibly produce by chance over hundreds of millions of years – to produce new genes and new proteins to support the production of new species.

Note the following:



And again:

First, that's the phrase Vangelovski initially used.

Second, can you define "new information" precisely?

Third, I'll use your own words:

Mutations produce new genes...

To produce new animals requires new information -- new genes...

You said it: mutations produce new genes and new genes are needed to produce animals.

Is your confusion because you: a) don't know what you mean by new information; or b) you don't know much about genetics?

[George S.]

spitfire i have to agree with you on that one.If you have design you have to have the designer.That is god.Yes in that situation you are god.

[George S.]

Eveything created in the physical world came from somewhere and creationism is the answer.Evolving is questionable.God created all things by jesus christ jesus spoke god created its as simple as that.God can do anything because he is all powerfull.God is the creator of all there is.

[Philosopher]

I'm not going to get involved in yet another long and boring argument with you.

First, that's the phrase Vangelovski initially used.

Yes, you are right. It was Vengelovski. I stand corrected.

Second, can you define "new information" precisely?

By new information, I mean new genetic data (new genes and proteins) capable of producing a new animal. To produce new animals, new genes and proteins are required. These genes and proteins cannot arise from existing genes or mutations in genes.

Third, I'll use your own words:

I know what I wrote, and I stand by it. Mutations produce genes that produce changes within species. This is micro-evolution. No one denies natural selection within the construct of micro-evolution.

Mutations do not produce new animals. A duck with gene mutations cannot become a donkey because of these genetic mutations. It will remain a duck. For a duck to become a donkey, you would need the genetic code to produce a donkey – new genetic data that is not present in a duck and cannot be produced by mutations.

Now, please, do all of us a favor and explain to us how new animals are produced (macro-evolution) without new genes and proteins? If you believe mutations can produce new animals, can you please cite examples?

[George S.]

god created all animals with a purpose to serve mankind.I don't think animals came from mutations.

[spitfire]

spitfire i have to agree with you on that one.If you have design you have to have the designer.That is god.Yes in that situation you are god.

Of course. If you believe in the pseudo science of intelligent design that is.

It doesn't answer though anything else. It's still creationism. No scientific proof of any sort.

[spitfire]

Now, please, do all of us a favor and explain to us how new animals are produced (macro-evolution) without new genes and proteins? If you believe mutations can produce new animals, can you please cite examples?

You have benn given the example of the finches and what a different spieces is.
By avoiding that, you keep bringing back questions already answered. That's like praying in a mosk. You repeat the same prayer again and again for as long as it takes to persuade yourself.

[Philosopher]

You have benn given the example of the finches and what a different spieces is.
By avoiding that, you keep bringing back questions already answered. That's like praying in a mosk. You repeat the same prayer again and again for as long as it takes to persuade yourself.

Natural selection produced variations within the Finches, it did not produce a new animal. This is an example of micro-evolution. We are not discussing that.

We are asking for evidence of how new animals are produced without new genes and proteins.

[spitfire]

Natural selection produced variations within the Finches, it did not produce a new animal. This is an example of micro-evolution. We are not discussing that.

We are asking for evidence of how new animals are produced without new genes and proteins.

You 'd hope. It created new species. And that's it.

[Vangelovski]

Rather than asking the 'evolutionists', I'll ask the atheists/naturalists (though I suspect they are one and the same):

In order for evolution to even be plausible, how did life begin in the first place? Non-living matter cannot turn into living matter. And yet, naturalist philosophy (or should I call it religion) claims that all life had to arise from natural properties and causes, completely denying any supernatural or spiritual explanations.

So how is it possible for non-living matter to turn into living matter? This is a key doctrine of your naturalist religion, surely we could get some answer to this question?

[vicsinad]

I'm not going to get involved in yet another long and boring argument with you.



Yes, you are right. It was Vengelovski. I stand corrected.



By new information, I mean new genetic data (new genes and proteins) capable of producing a new animal. To produce new animals, new genes and proteins are required. These genes and proteins cannot arise from existing genes or mutations in genes.



I know what I wrote, and I stand by it. Mutations produce genes that produce changes within species. This is micro-evolution. No one denies natural selection within the construct of micro-evolution.

Mutations do not produce new animals. A duck with gene mutations cannot become a donkey because of these genetic mutations. It will remain a duck. For a duck to become a donkey, you would need the genetic code to produce a donkey – new genetic data that is not present in a duck and cannot be produced by mutations.

Now, please, do all of us a favor and explain to us how new animals are produced (macro-evolution) without new genes and proteins? If you believe mutations can produce new animals, can you please cite examples?

Your posts show a lack of understanding of genetics and evolution. So I don't know how you'll understand the following:

Let's say there is a species. However, they get separated by a geological event (for example, the moving of the plates creating oceans in between land masses (you have to accept geology for this on)). They are now population A and B. Because of access, they can't breed with each other, but it doesn't mean they are incapable of breeding if they had access.

Well, microevolution continues to happen (changes within a species) for X amount of years until those mutations lead to more changes in key genetic aspects (like chromosome number/structure) in at least one of the populations. Now, population A and B cannot breed with each other even if there was access. One of the populations becomes a new species, or perhaps they both did.

This is just one of many ways.

[Philosopher]

I really shouldn't have to repeat this, but I feel it is necessary for some more recalcitrant members.

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.

The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change?

Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change?

http://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/