Evolutionists, explain this please?

A scientist who understands the theory of evolution has written this about mutations and information: "The Genome is the total genetic information of an individual member of a species. The Gene-pool is the total genetic information of a species or sub-species. So to understand genetic information we have to understand how the Genome and the Gene-pool work. Here is an illustration.

In a supermarket you see thousands of different products but you do not want them all. So you make a selection. At the checkout you see that people in front of you have different selections, though perhaps with some overlap. One person may be subject to the selective pressure of a low bank balance so has chosen cheap goods. Another person s basket is filled with foods loved by children, due to the selective pressure of a large family. Now, this all has to do with the idea that natural selection increases the genetic information available in the Gene pool of life.

The total range of in-store products remains the same from week to week, with huge variety available to the baskets that pass through. Thus the inheritance of different genes and gene combinations as one generation follows another can give rise to many different genomes - variations within a species that all derive from the same gene pool. But even within a racial group of humans, no two of us are identical, bar identical twins

Second, nobody carries from the store more than a fraction of the goods available. The shopper has left all the remaining products behind. Likewise, selective pressures in nature can only produce diversification by the LOSS of genetic information. If natural selection causes a species to evolve into two separate species, each of the new species must lack some of the genetic content of the parent genome. Otherwise nothing new has been produced. Natural selection, even when guided by geographical isolation, can never create new genetic information. All it can do is select different genetic baskets from the gene-pool supermarket, leaving the rest behind. Well might Richard Dawkins admit that [quote] contrary to earlier prejudices, there is nothing inherently progressive about evolution. [quote ends, from his book The Blind Watchmaker, p 178]

Mutations are the only factor in evolution theory that might conceivably introduce new genetic information into the biosphere, but there is no scientific evidence that they actually do so. There is evidence of beneficial mutation (as well as neutral mutation, that accomplishes nothing beneficial). But beneficial mutation always involves a loss of genetic information that protects the organism from specific threats, yet they are not beneficial in the constructive sense needed by evolution - of giving rise to increased biological complexity or sophistication. Quite the reverse. Genome degradation occurs.

The wonder of DNA is that it deals with organized information. Randomly formed information DNA molecules would have no information stored within them. They would be blank media. They could contribute nothing towards life-processes. It is not the chemistry of DNA that underwrites life but the information stored in the DNA - information encoded by the meaningful sequence of base pairs and which spells out instructions that the living cell can read, translate and use. Life, therefore, consists not in molecular chemistry but in the information stored by the molecular chemistry. Life is special because it resides not in the chemical media but in the information stored on the chemical media.

Where did this information come from? And why is this information consistently spread throughout all of Earth's living creatures in a way that enables them to replicate reliably? It is due to ingredients that are organized by intelligence, not random chance. DNA is proof of this. But no DNA can work under random conditions. It must be organized, and it takes intelligence to organize information that works consistently through the centuries. That is the 'signature' of the Creator." So this scientist agrees with the claim that mutations cannot produce new information. AiH

Who cares whether the information is "new" or not? If the species doesn't have that particular genetic sequence before the mutation, then that sequence and that gene is new to that species, and can conceivably result in a new trait can help or hinder that individual's survival. And to the extent that happens, the newly mutated gene can be passed on to the entire species over many, many generations.

Naively, your claim about "genetic information" doesn't make any sense. You'll have to define exactly what you mean by "information" and "genetic information" and what would constitute adding "genetic information" vs. a mutation that does not.

I haven't seen a peer reviewed study that conclusively shows that genetic disorders are actually increasing. Citation please.

Humans will continue to evolve to survive as does every species on this planet. Whether that will be a "higher" species or not depends on your perspective and only time will tell.

As someone else stated, mutations themselves do not lead to information-- they ARE information.

But evolution also has a lot to do with selection, more so than mutation even. For example, blonde hair and blue eyes were likely a mutation that helped people adapt to colder, darker climates. However, it became so widespread in Scandinavia not because everyone starting mutating, but because people found these physical traits to be beautiful and therefore mated more frequently with people who had them. Get it?

Now, as for modern genetic disorders, this is also a result of human selection. See, for centuries humans would give strong preference to healthy mates (beauty was always a factor, but health was the most important one), and for centuries, humans born with certain disorders would die off before reaching reproductive age due to lack of medicine to care for them. In modern times however, and perhaps to our own detriment, we've come to value a mate's beauty over health, and the reproductive pool is actually flooded with people who would have died at an early age had it not been for modern medicine. So, genetic disorders thrive. Making matters even worse is the fact that in the mid 20th century humans began processing the hell out of food and experimenting with all kinds of fun things, like radiation.

So basically, we humans are literally going to be our own downfall if drastic changes are not made.

Actually, all mutations add genetic information.

Since the gene pool of the population consists of all genetic information of its individuals, and a mutation changes an allele without removing any of the same allele it copied which are still in the gene pool, information has only been added.

"...that mutations can't produce new information."

What do you mean by "information"? Do you mean genes? Because gene duplication and insertion happens all the time which would add more "information".

If you're going to pretend like you know what you're talking about, you and your Creationist buddies should at least try to use proper terminology.

"Another thing, notice how genetic disorders are actually increasing."

No they're not. Feel free to provide any evidence for this claim though.

"Yet there's quite the belief that we're evolving to a higher species?"

There is no "higher" or "lower" species. We're all related in the same way that family members are related, saying "higher" makes no sense. Did you even learn the basics of evolution in school or are you really this ignorant?

@Additional Details: What is "genetic information"? You refuse to tell us what physical property this is or how you quantify how much "information" something has.

"It has been proven, not only by Creationists, but also by your own like-minded scientists, that mutations can't produce new information."

No, it hasn't. That statement is a lie, demonstrably false. I can't imagine why you would think a flat-out lie would be a good argument for your belief.

"... in all of his research, he had never found a mutation that added information. In fact, they reduced the genetic information. "

I haven't seen it, so it doesn't happen, huh? Nice fallacious argument from ignorance -- and a dishonest one at that. And the assertion that they "reduced the genetic information" is also false and dishonest. More lies in support of your belief, how sad for you.

"notice how genetic disorders are actually increasing."

They're not. Our ability to recognize them, using DNA testing, is.

Every single thing you wrote is demonstrably false. Every. Single. Thing.

Thanks again for demonstrating that ignorance and dishonesty are the foundation of your irrational belief. Well done.

Why even bother to lie?

The four letter code that constitutes the DNA of all living things changes over time; for example individual or several letters can be copied incorrectly [substitution], lost [deletion] or gained [insertion]. Such changes can lead to functional and structural changes in genes and proteins and ultimately to the formation of new species.

Insertions are much more common whilst deletions appear to be rare.

Animals were generally thought to evolve when a single species gradually splits into two over many generations. But scientists now believe that behavior that has been called animals' sexual blunders could be an important force in their evolution.

Hybrid-formed species are usually extremely difficult to detect because of their close physical resemblance to their parent species. But today scientists are able to collect the detailed molecular data needed to identify previously unrecognized hybrids. 10 per cent of animal species and 25 per cent of plant species are now known to hybridize.

Lying for god is not just lying but blasphemy!

Spetner IS a Jewish Creationist so he's not a good example of stuff believed "not only by Creationists".

Also, the stuff about mutations not adding "new information" isn't real. Sorry about that.

I don't think you understand. For instance, it is entirely possible for a mutation to result in eyeballs on your feet. Since this wouldn't be good for survival, and your likelihood to mate and pass this on is moot, then it would not result in differentiation of species.

But if you develop a mutation that *IS* beneficial, and you mate with others and pass along this genetic code, over time it can result in minute changes.

Evolution is actually the OPPOSITE of chance. Only the best traits for survivalism survive to be passed on. Mutations happen by chance, but overall evolution of a species is quite orderly. In humanity, our social support systems and gathering together helped us to pass along many beneficial traits.

One person (Dr. Lee Spetner in this case) having a theory, does not change or prove anything...unless he can back it up with repeated tests, by many different knowledgeable people, thus proving or disproving the theory.

So get a bunch of other scientists to test and agree with his claim, or go back to playing video games.

Edit: And another thing, if you had wanted any real info on this, you would have posted it in the correct section, instead of whining about it in this one.

Another creationist who doesn't understand science using misinformation and appeal to authority fallacies.

"Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)

increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)

novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)

novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)"

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html