Can you show me one case of information adding to the genetic code in relation to mutation?

Question

There seems to be a debate over Evolution & Creation.

I have a question for Evolution believers, all the evidence I have seen shows the opposite, mutation & natural selection remove information.

Can you show me one case of increased information since this is what evolution is based on?

I am a christian, & I have read a lot of info about creation/evolution & most of my info has come from a christian basis, but some of the info I have got from evolutionist & some have been called leaders in their field seem to come across foolish in the way they present themselves. I'm not saying you will change my belief but if you link sites I will try to read them.

Answer 1

First I'd like to point out that it is a mistake to believe that mutation only destroys or removes information, in the majority of cases information is either duplicated or copied incorrectly with a loss, gain or a change in base pairs.

Here is an example of a well documented observation of acquirement of new genetic data

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In 1975 a strain of Flavobacterium was found that was capable of digesting byproducts of nylon manufacture. These byproducts do not exist naturally and could not have been found in the world until nylons invention in 1935.

The actual enzymes (now known as nylonase) used to digest the compounds were odd in that they had no effect on materials other than the nylon byproducts.

Upon studying the bacteria further, it was deduced that a particular strain had developed the enzyme due to a frame shift in it's DNA - that is, an additional base pair being added to a particular codon due to a copying error, disrupting gene layout and completely removing it's ability to produce the amino acids for it's original set of digestive enzymes but giving it this novel new nylonase enzyme.

It should be noted that while nylonase is effective at breaking down nylon byproducts, it is less than 10% as effective as the bacterium's original enzymes were on its original food sources.

Answer 2

Yeah. Look at the hsp70 gene superfamily (found in everything from bacteria to humans). These genes are all descended from one ancestral gene, it has been a case of duplication, with mutations modifiying duplicated genes until they became similar, but different.

Then, look at "junk" DNA - plenty of evidence for "old" genes which no longer function, but are similar to modern day functional genes - again a case of duplication and mutation.

And evolution is not simply about new genes adding to existing ones, it is also about modifying existing ones to lead to new function (not always improved). Natural selection "picks out" the fittest individuals, who survive to breed but the subsequent generation will be somewhat different to the first population. Evolution is usually a slow process, over many thousands of years - although evolution can also be lightning fast when there is a critical event.

The nature of the genetic code and the structure and function of the proteins built from is such that deleterious (that's bad) mutations are more easily picked up - neutral ones cannot be detected just by looking at an organism - but most mutations are neutral! And of course, some are beneficial. It depends on where a mutation occurs and what the effect of it is on the actual protein. A lot of mutationsare also corrected, the nucleus has DNA repair mechanisms - necessary becuase every day a cell is exposed to natural ionizing radiation!

But you only asked for one case, so I will stop here.

Answer 3

Well, evolution is not based on " an increase in information ", but merely the change in allele frequencies over time. If you meant evolution by natural selection, I can give you a loose example. We artificially select bacteria to survive, by sparing the few who have resistance to antibiotics. These bacteria not only reproduce, but also conjugate with like bacteria and pass on the genetic information of resistance. Those that receive that information plasmid can surely be said to be " increasing their information. You were given a rather technical site, so go here and learn. This argument is addressed there. I doubt you will avail yourself of this site, though, as you seem ossified and happy in your ignorance.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 4

The problem seems to be your mistaken belief that mutation (which then relates to natural selection as new traits are chosen as more beneficial in a changing environment) removes information.

In fact, mutation more often CHANGES information, often at the protein level. For example, a one base change in the beta chain of hemoglobin (made up of 4 chains, two alpha and 2 beta) results in the disease known as sickle cell anemia. This mutation is very beneficial to those that inherit one copy of this gene if they live in Subsaharan Africa since it makes the 'mutant' more resistant to malaria. This is why the gene is still very high in the black populations that live in this region, and the migrational effects of slavery explain why so many blacks in the USA and the Caribbean still carry the gene.

Evolution is NOT based on increased information, so this is a fallacy you should question instead of just take for truth. Perhaps read Darwin's 'Origin of Species' for yourself, or start your search for answers at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Remember that creationism is not based on scientific principles and religious and philosophical beliefs should not be taught in science classes. They are important to humanity and deserve exploration, but please don't confuse these systems of belief with science.

Answer 5

You asked for one example. Here's four:

1. Color vision in Old World primates (including humans). This has been genetically traced to a duplication + mutation of the opsin gene responsible for long-wavelength vision (blues). This created a duplicate opsin gene, except that it was sensitive to medium-wavelength light (greens). This took us from two-color vision (red-blue) to three-color vision (red-green-blue). That's an increase in information. (Source 1.)

2. A species of peach aphid (Myzus persicae) developed resistance to pesticide traced to a single gene duplication + mutation. By definition, this is an increase in information in the genotype if it confers additional resistance to a toxin (in this case the insecticide). (Source 2.)

3. Yeast was kept in a glucose-limited environment. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further for more efficient metabolism of the glucose (sugar). In other words, a single gene for a single hexose enzyme, became multiple genes coding for mutiple enzymes with different properties ... that is an increase in information. (Source 3.)

4. A gene for an enzyme in the pancreas of langur monkeys duplicated, and one of the copies mutated into a different version of the enzyme, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. A gene for one enzyme is now two genes for two enzymes with different properties ... increase in information. (Source 4.)

Answer 6

Define information.

Answer 7

I realize this totally doesn't answer your question... but just because genetic code is "removed" doesn't mean it can't be evolution.

Answer 8

Wheat, for example, is hexaploid, carries 6 full chromosome sets.
Nice, isn't it.

Answer 9

Easy.

Answer 10

Evolution v. Creation? I believe in evolution. See I used to be a leftwing liberal lunatic - a Demonrat if you will. Now I am a rightwing radical Christian Republican. I became something better in the process.

As for the type of evolution that Satanists/scientists persistently tend to argue exists: it's malarkey at best. I ought to know, my brother is a PhD (Piled higher and Deeper) scientist at one of our national labs. He's also one of those Satanists who argues that God does not exist and that man evolved from monkeys or something.

But like most of the scientists that are attempting to influence the political world he has not one shred of proof of a living creature evolving from one life form to another in either the animal kingdom or the plant kingdom. This utter lack of physical evidence is not only contrary to what science used to be about but would fail to hold water in any courtroom in America.

The same is true for carbon dating. We always hear about how many millions of years old something is because science says so. When we look deeper they say their so-called science is the result of carbon dating. FACT: carbon dating is only accurate - and this is stretching it to the extremeties of leniency, to maybe 800 years at best. Once again, the politically motivated Satanist/scientists fail to even have pudding for proof in their so-called science.

When they do come up with enough hullbaloo in an attempt to substantiate their lack of proper physical evidence, actually linking their work under scrutinization, it is simply words strung together that are powerful enough to fool a few who are weak minded upstairs in regards to science. Just like the previous sentence: proof that words can be twisted to say anything, most of the science today that is controversial is just that.

There are scientists who are arguing against Evolution. But they are ridiculed and dismissed by those who are in control. Let's look at this a little deeper and piece together what's really going on here.

In 1913, a group of very powerful men became even more powerful through a piece of legislation. They were given control of a nation's monetary policies and the ability to dominate the entire economy of the United States. This was perpetuated through the Owen-Glass Act of 1913 and the beast referred to is the Federal Reserve System.

It is a privately owned corporation. Even President Wilson, who signed the bill into law, admitted regrettably doing so in his memoirs. That's enlightening - a politician admitting that they were influenced to make a law and that the particular law was a crime against our citizens.

This particular crime against the people of the United States is evident since the arguement sustained in it's passage was that the Federal Reserve would stabilize the American economy. See: Agricultural Depression in which 1,000,000 American families lost their farms because they refused to submit to the Federal Reserve System and kept using their community banks. Where are all those independent banks that existed then? What about the Great Depression that current Fed Chairman Bernanke admitted was intentionally perpetuated by the monetary policies enacted by the owners of the Federal Reserve System? The evidence is incontrovertible in this case.

They stabilized the economy alright. They bought low and sold high and put the money in their own pockets. The folks who own the Federal Reserve have a 14-point political agenda that has remained in the shadows where Satan lurks for some time.

It includes promoting socialism/welfare state, pornography, drug use and alcholism. It goes on to state that it seeks to control the flow of information/disinformation through the mainstream media as well as academia including even public schools. Where does your local school district buy their textbooks? Who checks the material promoted in those textbooks? Who sets the curriculum?

Beyond all of this, the owners of the Federal Reserve who are purely Satanic, in their 14-point manifesto seek to control public officials. They seek prospective leaders who will comply with their wishes and submit to their desires instead of ask compelling questions and argue with distinction.

Why are none of the facts presented here in the news and in the minds of the public at large? The folks who own the Federal Reserve also control, through the ownership of majority stock, the mainstream media including CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, network radio, thousands of newspapers and magazines as well as many so-called alternative news websites on the internet.

The last thing they want is for the truth to get out. Now many people are anti-Christs and will argue anything to stay away from the church and The Bible. But then again the Bible tells us that "many are called and few are chosen."

The Bible also states that "you are either a slave to Christ or a slave to Satan." It's fitting that many of the people who are arguing that they have freedom from religion are precisely what the Bible is talking about in this case. They have freedom from Christ - through slavery to Satan and yet they have yet to realize this. Maybe they never will and will wind up in hell.

Satan will keep the fire ablaze for them if that is their final destination. Just as anyone who is arguing evolution is a slave to Satan - I am a slave to Christ. Yet through Christ and submission to his absolute authority as the leader of my life I attain the very freedom that Satan and his followers claim to give those who stay away and separate themselves from Christ and The Bible.

It's fitting that whenever you bring religion into the arguement that Satanists will come out of the woodwork in doing so. The first thing they will do is call you names and try and remove/separate the two issues. The Bible tells us "you will know them by their fruit."

The question is hardly one of is evolution or creation true? The question is when will Christians become Ambassadors for Christ and stand up for Christ here on Earth? If Christians fail to make this stand are they really Christians?

If you fail to stand for Christ, over all the silly little things Satan promotes here on Earth, do you honestly believe that Christ will stand for you on the day of your judgement?

Evolution exists only in fantasy. There has never been, nor will their ever be, a natural living plant or animal that begins it's life as one living creature and through some sort of magic science becomes another totally recognizable creature during that same lifetime without some scientist playing God and intervening to "create" science in hopes of appeasing Satan.