No new information was created in the genome due to mutations

  • 24 Replies
  • 11906 Views
Demanding evolutionists to give proof of evolution in forms of examples of new information in the genome due to mutations I have been given two papers which will be addressed here (from my inquiries to Royal Truman)

The first paper: Laterally transferred elements and high pressure adaptation in Photobacterium profundum strains
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/6/122

Answer:
This paper does not indicate that new information was created in the genome due to mutations

Conceptual background. Consider these points first:

1) There are many cases were already existing genes can be brought into a different genome, by careful design. For example, a mother lacks a Y chromosome but this can be provided by her husband, leading to a baby boy with genetic material the parent (mother) did not have.
2) The alleles from the mother and father are often not identical. This allows latent features already present in their combined genes to be revealed (curly hair, different height…). On parent might be dark skinned, the other light, but the baby neither (a nice tanned color!)
These are not examples of mutations having created new information! The information was already there, even if not yet revealed.
3) Suppose someone claimed to be able to become wealthier without having to work. He then proceeds to transfer some coins from one pocket into another one. Is he now richer, because the second pocket has more coins? No.

Please keep these points in mind as we evaluate this paper.

It is very advantageous for small organisms with short generation times, like bacteria, to streamline their genomes. And indeed, it is very common when bacteria replicate to lose genes. If these are not needed in the immediate future, that lineage can use available energy from nutrients more effectively and reproduce faster then the heavy-weight ones.

Now, the genes no longer available could become necessary later, so they are kept in reserve, distributed among other hosts, whether as phages (virus) or plasmids or transposons. The necessary genes are available on these hosts or the ‘vector’ directly to construct the necessary molecular machinery to then transfer these genes to other organisms. The processes are carefully Designed to permit this to occur. For example, in bacterial conjugation the host first makes sure the intended partner does not already have the plasmid and only if the answer is ‘no’ will a copy of the plasmid be transferred. Dozens of genes are used in this gene-transfer process. It is obviously Designed and not the process of accident.

Plasmids and other genetic elements can be tossed out easily by the recipient afterward, if not needed. The overall tendency is for bacteria to lose any genes not needed at the moment, which is a major problem for evolutionists, since superfluous genetic material is needed if brand new genes are to evolve.

In a nutshell, the information being made available the the bacteria in this paper was already available, whether on phage, transposons or plasmids, and was not created by random mutations. Furthermore, none of these three genetic elements are living. The genes were made available to them from somewhere else. They can pick up genes from living organisms. It is precisely the origin of these novel genes which has not be explained naturalistically.

Note in this paper how many genes are expressed together at higher or lower levels as temperature and pressure changes. These genes are involved at the same time for various cellular processes and must work joint as an ensemble. The genes brought in have already been Designed to respond to regulatory signals used by those organisms.

If the argument is that mutations fine-tuned the genes to perform better under those special conditions there is no evidence that the initial genes variants were not already suitable for the intended purposes, or at close to it. It is entirely reasonable, and expected, that a few minor mutations could modify some genes, in a microevolutionary sense. This is not problematic. Among huge bacterial populations these alternatives may already be present, to permit rapid response to a new challenge, and natural selection just adjusts their relative proportion. The information here is latent, already built in.

As an analogy: one could design a firearm to shoot a single bullet or as a shotgun, with many pellets. The shotgun design must be well engineered to fulfill its intended function. The information that went into its’ construction already accommodates a series of targets a few millimeters apart. A huge population of bacteria can accommodate variants with enough flexibility at enzymatic active sites to process different sugars, or handle similar toxic substances. Nothing truly new is being created, the original tools are simply being used within the range of options built in.

The second paper: Genome Comparison of a Nonpathogenic Myxoma Virus Field Strain with Its Ancestor, the Virulent Lausanne Strain
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/83/5/2397

Answer:
This paper demonstrates precisely the opposite of what the evolutionist wishes to show!

The bottom line is that in the period between 1952 and 1995 the strain of the virus MV Lausanne mutated to strain ‘6918’ and in the process totally wiped out four of the 159 genes (= ORF or ‘Open Reading Frames’). This is indeed the average, net effect of what mutations do, although slowed down by natural selection: they destroy function, or information.

The evolutionist needs to show that mutations can create new genes, and not destroy them! To illustrate: earthquakes can destroy houses. But this does not prove earthquakes can create them!

Image a new population somewhere in which everyone has developed four flaws (everyone is missing a finger, a toe, and ear and one eye). Would this be offered as proof that evolution is creating new, complex features? Of course not.

Maybe whoever sent this paper (and shot him/herself in the paw in process) had the notion that adjusting to an environmental change is proof of evolutionary theory. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The potential to adjust to circumstances has already been built into us. For example, our body temperature remains at 37 °C in spite of the surrounding temperature. It is very common to lose some alleles (gene variants) to permit specialization to new circumstances, leading to creatures of various sizes and characteristics. The species which result have now lost the ability to adjust to additional circumstances: the necessary genes their forefathers had have been lost. Just like with the ‘6918’ virus: without those four destroyed genes (and the others which will get degraded with yet more mutations) the virus has lost the information necessary to adjust to a wide range of circumstances.

Finally, it is meaningless in principle to try to use virus as evidence for evolution; they are not independent, free living organisms at all. Real organisms have the genes necessary to decode the genetic information which is carried on their genes; and all the genes needed to replicate on their own; etc. Mutations can degrade or destroy all these genes on real organisms, relentlessly over time. Virus use the processing machinery of the hosts and don’t possess all these genes themselves, which is why they can mutate so fast: the genes needed to be truly alive are missing entirely and thus can’t be destroyed by mutations. So the question whether mutations on average create new information in living organisms must be answered using real organisms.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2010, 01:13:48 AM »
Nice thread, but evolution doesn't make the claim that mutations generate new information.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2010, 03:02:15 AM »
Nice thread, but evolution doesn't make the claim that mutations generate new information.

This is a canard. The information in the genome has to come from somewhere if evolution is true - genetic mutations or an evolutionary process. All that's ever observed is information which was already in the genome, nothing new.

This question has been asked to Richard Dawkins

Interviewer: Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
Dawkins: Silent then doesn't answer the question.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2010, 03:13:30 AM by Chocolaty »

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2010, 03:27:49 AM »
Parsifal is correct.  Your poor use of terminology paints your argument ignorant.

Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2010, 03:43:05 AM »
Parsifal is correct.  Your poor use of terminology paints your argument ignorant.

No I'm afraid you're nescient about the theory of evolution otherwise griping about semantics (genetic information or genetic code) is a frail red herring - it's not part of the discussion of this thread.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2010, 03:58:45 AM »
I mulled over the notion of not replying to this.  It will be ultimately futile and Raist would eventually come along and answer your post (he most likely will regardless).  The effort is truly wasted, as evolution is so documented that to deny it is tantamount to denying the color of the sky or depth of the oceans.  The only people who argue like you do are either woefully misinformed or purposefully lying.  I hope the former.

To the point, if you really think that no new genetic information can be added to the genome, and really want to learn how it can be (and I mean really really, not for the sake of making your argument look balanced) then I recommend that you look up how mutations work, genetic recombination, and gene flow of closely related species.  All three of these factors are capable of increasing the information in the genome.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2010, 04:42:24 AM »
Evolution never happened.   Seriously, you cant prove it.

Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2010, 04:45:54 AM »
I mulled over the notion of not replying to this.  It will be ultimately futile and Raist would eventually come along and answer your post (he most likely will regardless).  The effort is truly wasted, as evolution is so documented that to deny it is tantamount to denying the color of the sky or depth of the oceans.  The only people who argue like you do are either woefully misinformed or purposefully lying.  I hope the former.
Cognitive dissonance. Please refrain from posting red herrings in this thread.


To the point, if you really think that no new genetic information can be added to the genome, and really want to learn how it can be (and I mean really really, not for the sake of making your argument look balanced) then I recommend that you look up how mutations work, genetic recombination, and gene flow of closely related species.  All three of these factors are capable of increasing the information in the genome.
I see you now have no issue with using the term you erstwhile had an issue with me using. You're implying new genetic information can be added to the genome. If you had any example of this you would have provided it. Lecturing me condescendingly as to how I can learn how something such as this - which doesn't happen anywhere in nature - work rather than providing examples bears no weight at all. Gene migration is the transfer of already existing genetic code and is precisely what I previously mentioned regarding reshuffling of existing genetic code. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds but it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

Let's keep to the topic please.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2010, 09:33:47 AM »
Nice thread, but evolution doesn't make the claim that mutations generate new information.

This is a canard. The information in the genome has to come from somewhere if evolution is true - genetic mutations or an evolutionary process. All that's ever observed is information which was already in the genome, nothing new.

This question has been asked to Richard Dawkins

Interviewer: Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
Dawkins: Silent then doesn't answer the question.


Uh, you do know that that clip was taken in his home by a reporter claiming to be there about another subject. He refused to answer the question because they were there on false pretenses.

Also, back up the bolded statement.

I really want to go in depth into this, your base statement claiming information can not be added to the genome by mutation is where I will start at least.

Since you obviously don't actually mean anything by this statement I will take it as literally as possible. At the moment a single bit of information in a gene is considered the nucleic acid. So your claim boils down to "mutations can not add nucleic acids to a gene." This is completely incorrect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_%28genetics%29 is an entire page written on dna accidentally having a new bit of "information" inserted.

Perhaps this is not what you meant, but it is what you said. Please rephrase your argument to make a single bit of sense.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2010, 09:41:50 AM by Raist »

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2010, 09:35:06 AM »
Evolution never happened.   Seriously, you cant prove it.

Another win for Creationism!

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #10 on: May 27, 2010, 01:22:07 PM »
I mulled over the notion of not replying to this.  It will be ultimately futile and Raist would eventually come along and answer your post (he most likely will regardless).  The effort is truly wasted, as evolution is so documented that to deny it is tantamount to denying the color of the sky or depth of the oceans.  The only people who argue like you do are either woefully misinformed or purposefully lying.  I hope the former.
Cognitive dissonance. Please refrain from posting red herrings in this thread.


To the point, if you really think that no new genetic information can be added to the genome, and really want to learn how it can be (and I mean really really, not for the sake of making your argument look balanced) then I recommend that you look up how mutations work, genetic recombination, and gene flow of closely related species.  All three of these factors are capable of increasing the information in the genome.

I see you now have no issue with using the term you erstwhile had an issue with me using. You're implying new genetic information can be added to the genome. If you had any example of this you would have provided it. Lecturing me condescendingly as to how I can learn how something such as this - which doesn't happen anywhere in nature - work rather than providing examples bears no weight at all. Gene migration is the transfer of already existing genetic code and is precisely what I previously mentioned regarding reshuffling of existing genetic code. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds but it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

Let's keep to the topic please.

I do not have the time, energy, nor want to teach you the theory of evolution.  I'm sorry that whatever school you attended had failed you so horribly.  I'm sure that you think your arguments sound reasonable and in your mind you are having a strong debate, but the truth of the matter is that you are making yourself look glaringly uneducated.  If you can demonstrate that you have a strong grasp of the theory of evolution then I would be more than happy to engage you in a debate.  However, all I've seen you do so far is copy/paste propaganda and spout ignorant rhetoric.

*

Lorddave

  • 18198
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #11 on: May 27, 2010, 07:51:47 PM »
Here's a good article showing evolution at it's finest:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html


Anyway, evolution is simply a mutation that does not hamper the organism and, hopefully, helps it to reproduce at a better rate than the others of it's species. 

Could the DNA strand get larger?  Sure.  Does it have to?  No. 

In fact it's usually just a remix of the combination of whatever raw materials it has.  The whole DNA strand is technically in Binary code.  4 compounds that link to only one other compound.  This creates a string of amino acids that is either one set or the other. 

Remember, Evolution happens when DNA get's damaged but the damage HELPS the organism survive instead of hampering it.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2010, 10:48:48 PM »
The whole DNA strand is technically in quarternary code.

Fixed.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2010, 11:07:58 PM »
Here's a good article showing evolution at it's finest:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html


Anyway, evolution is simply a mutation that does not hamper the organism and, hopefully, helps it to reproduce at a better rate than the others of it's species. 

Could the DNA strand get larger?  Sure.  Does it have to?  No. 

In fact it's usually just a remix of the combination of whatever raw materials it has.  The whole DNA strand is technically in Binary code.  4 compounds that link to only one other compound.  This creates a string of amino acids that is either one set or the other. 

Remember, Evolution happens when DNA get's damaged but the damage HELPS the organism survive instead of hampering it.

No, evolution happens when DNA is improperly copied, then this copy needs to be at least as fit as the previous version, and if this trait is heritable.

?

Tech

  • 107
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2010, 11:51:58 PM »
Evolution could be explained away by a good'ol fashioned conspiracy of course. Pretty much anything could.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2010, 01:07:27 AM »
Evolution could be explained away by a good'ol fashioned conspiracy of course. Pretty much anything could.

That's just silly.

*

Lorddave

  • 18198
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2010, 04:01:25 AM »
The whole DNA strand is technically in quarternary code.

Fixed.

correct me if I'm wrong but there are 4 specific ameino acids that link up with each other but they can only link up with one of them. This means that there is only two possible pairs.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2010, 01:25:24 PM »
The whole DNA strand is technically in quarternary code.

Fixed.

correct me if I'm wrong but there are 4 specific ameino acids that link up with each other but they can only link up with one of them. This means that there is only two possible pairs.
yes there are two possible pares but don't forget it only reads half the DNA so it only reads one of the two parts of the pair. so depending on how it is set up if we have a pair AB it can be set up to read only the A or only the B not both. not sure how coherent that was if you can't understand what I said someone else will probably right a much clearer form of this.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

Lorddave

  • 18198
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2010, 02:26:22 PM »
The whole DNA strand is technically in quarternary code.

Fixed.

correct me if I'm wrong but there are 4 specific ameino acids that link up with each other but they can only link up with one of them. This means that there is only two possible pairs.
yes there are two possible pares but don't forget it only reads half the DNA so it only reads one of the two parts of the pair. so depending on how it is set up if we have a pair AB it can be set up to read only the A or only the B not both. not sure how coherent that was if you can't understand what I said someone else will probably right a much clearer form of this.

No I understand it. 
When the DNA splits off into RNA or something else to read/copy the instructions it only grabs half of the strand and not the whole strand.  And because it only grabs half, it only reads half, which results in two different sets of instructions.

So I stand corrected.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2010, 10:48:41 PM »
The whole DNA strand is technically in quarternary code.

Fixed.

correct me if I'm wrong but there are 4 specific ameino acids that link up with each other but they can only link up with one of them. This means that there is only two possible pairs.

Jesus fucking christ. DNA is read as a single stranded molecule and in both directions. There are four possible amino acids for each "spot" the pairing only affects the opposite strand which doesn't affect the code.

There are 20 something amino acids made by humans, and they are coded by 3 nucleic acids, this means that the coding is either quarternary or it would not work.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2010, 11:42:23 PM »
There are 20 something amino acids made by humans, and they are coded by 3 nucleic acids, this means that the coding is either quarternary or it would not work.

Incorrect.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Lorddave

  • 18198
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #21 on: May 29, 2010, 05:47:25 PM »
The whole DNA strand is technically in quarternary code.

Fixed.

correct me if I'm wrong but there are 4 specific ameino acids that link up with each other but they can only link up with one of them. This means that there is only two possible pairs.

Jesus fucking christ. DNA is read as a single stranded molecule and in both directions. There are four possible amino acids for each "spot" the pairing only affects the opposite strand which doesn't affect the code.

There are 20 something amino acids made by humans, and they are coded by 3 nucleic acids, this means that the coding is either quarternary or it would not work.

You should have read my post right before yours:
I was corrected and understood the correction.



Bah.  I'm a computer guy; Genetics isn't my strong suit.
You have been ignored for common interest of mankind.

I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2010, 10:10:25 PM »
There are 20 something amino acids made by humans, and they are coded by 3 nucleic acids, this means that the coding is either quarternary or it would not work.

Incorrect.

I'm sorry, I meant "as opposed to binary"

Since we only had two options brought up I didn't feel like addressing cases that were not brought up.

*

Pete

  • 1240
  • I believe that the earth is round
Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2010, 11:44:36 PM »
Demanding evolutionists to give proof of evolution in forms of examples of new information in the genome due to mutations I have been given two papers which will be addressed here (from my inquiries to Royal Truman)

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Multiple posters have told you this. I am adding my vote. Please come back after you have completed high school biology keep posting so I can laugh more, its been a while.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2010, 11:46:57 PM by Pete »

Re: No new information was created in the genome due to mutations
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2010, 08:00:42 AM »
Interviewer: Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
Dawkins: Silent then doesn't answer the question.
Widely confirmed as fake (as in dishonestly edited to give the conclusion you have drawn).