Can any evolutionists tell me??

Question

Evolution (that is upward evolution; macro evolution) requires new information being added to the genome. A cow can duplicate info and produce another leg, but to produce a feather (or even the start of a feather or whatever) it needs NEW information added.
Can anyone give me an example that WE HAVE SEEN where new information is addded to the genome?

YOLI What r u talking about?? Adding info to the genome is adding new information to start to make something new on the animal. For Dinos to evolve into birds NEW information for feathers MUST be added to the genome for the animal to start producing FEATHERS. If the information is not there it will NOT start producing the beginnings of a feather!!!!

JBON: Sorry but the Big bang cosmology has been abandoned by many astronomers. When they started to question why planets rotated backwards from others and even full galaxies, they could not come up with viable answers. There is much evidence against the Big Bang, it is not scientifically sound

ANDREW: Think about what you are saying. You are not answering the question, you are in fact making it worse for evolutionists. Because the examples you made (us being taller) does not require NEW information. Second, your teaching about sickle cell is NOT adding info to the genome but is a mutation that is a LOSS of information. Sickle cell is deadly if you get the gene from both parents. But the cell is mutated (looks like a sickle) and the malaria cannot live in the cell because of it. Some call this a beneficial mutation, but sickle cell has many problems on the human body, you get tired faster etc. Saying this mutation is beneficial is like saying that an amputation of the foot is beneficial because you can no longer get athlete;s foot!!

ARBEIT Your answer is very misleading, I would like an instance that we have seen.And natural selection just selects, it does NOT produce something new.
I asked for a specific example, you said it happens but where is the specifics.

Everyone seems to say that mutations are the cause, but all we ever see in mutations is a LOSS of information


GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A GAIN OF NEW INFORMATION... BRAND NEW

Answer 1

Mutations and genetic variation coming from other members of the species. You can see it in viruses all the time, they evolve through mutations. Do some research on it.

All traits exhibited from organisms come from the five bases (adenine, guanine, cytosine, uracil, and thymine) of DNA and RNA. The order of these bases code for different proteins which are synthesized by ribosomes. These proteins are responsible for all of the traits exhibited by organisms. When a mutation occurs, say an A is inserted into the genetic code of an organism, the organism will produce a different protein and display a different trait. If this trait makes the organism more successful at reproduction, the genetic code will be passed on. If the trait is lethal, or hurts the organism's chance at reproduction, the code will not be passed on.

Mutations can be beneficial. Sickle cell is a great example, it is a recessive trait. If an organism receives an allele for sickle cell from one parent, but not the other, the organism will be immune to malaria and will not exhibit the sickle cell. This individual is thus, better able to survive than any other organism regarding sickle cell. This makes that organism able to pass on its genetic information. The problem is that the organism is a carrier, it has an allele for sickle cell. Depending on who the organism mates with, up to 50% of the organism's offspring will have both recessive alleles for sickle cell giving the offspring sickle cell (theoretically, the percentages don't always work out this way). The reason sickle cell survives is because a person who is a carrier for the disease can survive better than any other organism with regard to sickle cell and malaria. And an organism that is better at survival has a better chance at reproducing and passing on its genetic information.

An example we've seen of new information added to the genome? Human Immunodeficiency Virus. There's a link provided below.

Answer 2

Ah, we meet once more MusingAloud.

where is the new information added to the genome in evolution? Well radiation has been shown to cause mutation, and evolution is just vast epochs of beneficial mutation. So deposits of radioactive materials could cause evolution, but is highly unlikely. More likely is the fact that cellular mitosis is not an exact "science" as it were.

During mitosis your DNA is split and replicated, the cell structure that is involved in this process is not perfect and can occasionally **** up, rewriting small parts of the DNA or adding some extra crap where it aught not be. Generally this won't be beneficial, or really noticeable, but occasionally this change will be beneficial and it will be passed on and reproduced and enter the species gene pool.

Of note, these changes are not earth shattering, small things like slightly sharper claws or a minute fur like covering. It takes hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions in order for a new species to emerge. Far longer than recorded history to be sure.

For how feathers first formed you'll have to go to a more qualified biologist than myself. But an example of beings that have "evolved" over our history is, well us.

It is generally accepted among the scientific community that Africa was the cradle for human life. And while there we had dark skin tones and were suited to the environment. Then as we migrated north our skin tones lightened and we became much more stocky and broad (not to mention shorter) than our African descendants. This could be argued that we have not gained any genetic information from paling and looking more like Danny DeVito. If that is the case then look at asians. They are most assuredly humans but have "evolved" a different eye shape (which must have been additional genetic data for the more "complex" shape. As well asians also have fat pads on their cheeks where their european and african counterparts do not, which would count towards your macro evolution.

But humans are much too young to have witnessed first hand the evolution of a species into something new. Come back in a million years or so.

Answer 3

To say that "new information is added to the genome" is a little misleading. It's true that over time (a long time) complex structures do appear, but to say that a cow might suddenly sprout feathers is unrealistic. In particular, a cow with feathers will not be more successful at cow-life than a cow without feathers. In fact, there is a serious risk that the bulls will find her, well, fugly. Let's just say they won't invite her on the upcoming hay ride. So, if she never gets a chance to reproduce, her brand-new feather genes will never get passed on to the next generation, and the feathered cow is no more. Let us bow our heads and moo.

The process I just described is called natural selection. It is a critical component of evolution. With each generation, some tiny number of random mutations occur due to chance and the mixing of parental genes. Those that increase the chances of procreation will eventually drive out older versions of the same genetic code. It's survival of the fittest, as I'm sure you've heard.

With that understood, the answer to your question is everywhere. Every creature around you has a genetic code that is different from that of their parents. This is true of you as well. The chances of your genetic code having ever been repeated exactly in the past are unspeakably small. Your code has new information. I don't know whether your particular recipe makes you more fit for reproduction, but if so, then we can assume that there will be many more like you in the future. Bonne Chance!

Answer 4

It's unfair to ask about examples we have seen when it comes to something like evolution. Evolution takes place on a geological scale, much the same way the shifting of tectonic plates or the movement of glaciers do. There are no examples of evolution that we can see, only the effects of these evolutionary steps.

Also, never will an animal who was traditionally born with fur suddenly hatch a young with feathers. There is a slow transition from fur into feathers, or scales into feathers, or fur into skin, etc... Evolution is trial and error. It is the transition of a species as it tries to keep up with the changes in a very dynamic planet.

One doesn't have to believe in evolution, but believing in it does not disprove the idea of God. I assume that based on asking this question here, this was the point you may have been looking for. I don't believe in God, I believe in science, but I know plenty of people who believe in both. The fun of it is not knowing. What kind of world would this be if everything was cut and dry? What questions could we ask then?

So, long answer short: We won't ever see evolution, we will only see what we believe to be the effects of it, or the history of it encased in fossils.

Answer 5

You're looking too big. Think smaller subtle. For instance: Resistant strains of bacteria that we never had to deal with until the advent and overuse of penicillin and other antibiotics. With humans: We are taller than we were, partly due to diet, partly due to natural selection or choosing taller mates.

There are even some genetic diseases that were brought on by natural selection. Africans and African Americans have a much higher risk of sickle cell anemia. This is a genetic defense against malaria and thus people were able to live long enough to pass on their genes to their offspring. Unfortunutely, with malaria defeated in modern countries there is no need for it and the costs now outweigh the benefits.

Answer 6

The way I have always understood the theory of evolution, the genome is diversified through genetic mutation. Those mutations that are favorable to the survival of the species are passed on to the next generation, while those that are unfavorable are not. The accumulative effects of those mutations over long periods of time lead to the larger, more dramatic effects (development of the feather, e.g.).

Answer 7

Mutations NEVER produce beneficial animals. A deviant animal will die off strengthening the whole animals. Evolution is fiction disguised as science as an attempt to disprove the actual existence of a creator(GOD).

Answer 8

Feathers are chemically the same as scales--exactly the same.

The move from scales to feathers is not a huge leap, and could even be covered by so-called micro-evolution.

btw, there is no such thing as "micro" and "macro" evolution. Even creationist scientists have asked adherents to refrain from using the terms.

Answer 9

Define what you mean by "new information" first. I suspect you are simply playing a game Dr. Dino invented whereby all changes documented, no matter how beneficial, are defined to be a reduction in information, even if they result from an increase in genetic material.

Answer 10

Actually, they can do DNA analysis on bones up to 200,000 years old. So they can do DNA on bones of human ancestors. That is how they discovered Neanderthal was not actually our ancestor.

"New information" as you put it isn't adding new parts on the genome. It's changing existing ones to something different.

That is one example.