Evolution Error?

Question

Okay, a question regarding evolution.

In order for something to 'adapt' or 'evolve' from one form into another, the process of natural selection is involved, correct? Natural selection is explained as:

"An organism may possess some inheritable trait or character which, in a given environment, gives that organism a greater chance of passing on all of its genes to the next generation (compared with those of its fellows which don't have it). Over succeeding generations that trait or character has a good chance of becoming more widespread in that population."

Okay. This being the case then change occurs when a species adapts a characteristic that it already has or loses a characteristic in order to better suit it's environment.

A species cannot develop NEW characteristics which it was not genetically coded for to begin with. In other words, "what natural selection actually does is get rid of information".

So how do we go from simple to complex?

Are we therefore to believe that the slime we came from (or whatever it was) was ORIGINALLY genetically coded to be human beings? If so....why did it take so long to "evolve"? Doesn't that sort of go against the whole idea of what evolution is?

Seems as if there is a condtradiction here

"The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the permanent loss of some of the information in that group of organisms. If the environment were changed back so that shorter roots were the only way for plants to survive, the information for these would not magically 'reappear'; the population would no longer be able to adapt in this direction. The only way for a short-rooted variety to arise as an adaptation to the environment would be if things began once more with the 'mixed' or 'mongrel' parent population, in which both types of genes were present."

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/aboutevolution.html

TO THOSE CITING MUTATIONS::::

"Since natural selection can only cull, today's evolutionary theorists rely on mutations (random copying mistakes in the reproductive process) to create the raw material on which natural selection can then operate. But that is a separate issue. It has been shown convincingly that observed mutations do not add information, and that mutation is seriously hampered on theoretical grounds in this area.2 One of the world's leading information scientists, Dr Werner Gitt from Germany's Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, says, 'There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.'3 His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published. Even those mutations which give a survival benefit are seen to be losses of information, not creating the sorely needed new material upon which natural

I find it extremely interesting that I've been insulted....if I were an evolutionist pointing out an apparent contradiction in creationism, you would all be applauding me. But because I disagree you all want to tell me to read once in a while and tell me how small you think my brain is. How very rational of you.

I find it interesting, too, that you ALL spit back "genetic mutation" at me as if you were citing scripture. No, I am not a scientist, but I venture to say none of you are, either....(if I'm wrong, correct me) and yet you all present what YOU have read or quote off some allegedly "unbiased" website to me as if you were quoting the Bible.

Just an observation.

Answer 1

To go from that first single celled organism to a human means finding a way to generate enormous amounts of new information. You need the recipes to build eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscles, blood, etc. Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists now agree with this and so they point to mutations (copying errors in the genetic code) to provide the new information for natural selection to act upon. This is called “neo-Darwinian evolution.” So, the question is, can random mutations produce new creative information?

Obviously the evolutionists try to argue against this, but listen to what some scientists have said:

Dr. Lee Spetner (a biophysicist who taught at John Hopkins University) in his book Not By Chance analyzes examples of mutations that evolutionists have claimed to have been increases in information, and shows that they are actually examples of loss of specificity, which means they involved loss of information. He concluded, “All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.”

He also said, “The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the NDT [Neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up in volume.”

Dr. Ray Bohlin (who has a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology) said, “We see the apparent inability of mutations truly to contribute to the origin of new structures. The theory of gene duplication in its present form is unable to account for the origin of new genetic information—a must for any theory of evolutionary mechanism.”

And Dr. Warner Gitt (an information scientist who was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology), in answering the question (Can new information originate through mutations?) said, “...this idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information.”

Mutations can cause an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information. Even the somewhat beneficial mutations they point to like antibiotic resistance in bacteria are always a rearrangement or loss of information, never a gain.

For instance, a mutation that causes the pumps in its cell membrane not to work in a certain way so it doesn’t suck in the antibiotics we try to kill it with. You see, it is resistant because of a loss of an ability. Another mutation might change a binding site used by the antibiotic within the bacteria, rendering it unable to kill the bacteria. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new genetic information.

Sickle-cell anemia is often used as an example to support evolution, but the mutation causes a loss of normal function with no new ability or information.

Wingless beetles on a windy island and blind cave fish may have a survival advantage, but it comes from a loss of information.

This kind of stuff is used as evidence for evolution, but in every mutation (even the beneficial ones), this seems to always be the case. As Dr. Michael Behe (who has a Ph.D. in Biochemistry) said, “...most evolutionary changes are ones which either break or degrade genes—and these are the helpful mutations! But you can’t build new molecular machinery by breaking genes.”

All we see is a downhill change that fits with the fall in Genesis 3, headed in the wrong direction. Evolution requires new creative information, not a loss of information. Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into more advanced forms.

Answer 2

Your very adamant, and very wrong. Evolution happens through gradations. This is a very simple concept neglected by Creationists. If they actually took the time understand they'd no doubt see that evolution does indeed make perfect sense. You also confuse natural selection with evolution. They are not 1 in the same. Natural selection is only 1 explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. As other posters already mentioned (but you took offense) genetic drift, aka mutation, is another important aspect explaining evolution.

As for Werner Gitt, he is a German "young Earth creationist" and he's hardly respected in his field. I don't know where your cutting from, but whoever said Werner is "One of the world's leading information scientists" is stating an opinion that you can't possibly qualify. From everything I've read, Werner Gitt is seen as nothing more than a charlatan. Sorry.

The Werner passage you quoted confuses entropy with information and falls apart from there. He is essentially using the tired argument of the "2nd law proving God". The thoroughly debunked notion that because entropy of matter always increases, life could not possibly have evolved without the help of a mystical creator. The reason why this line of thinking fails: the 2nd law is defined in a closed system. The entropy of matter will increase in a CLOSED system. The Earth and the universe that contains it is a shared, not closed system. While the entropy of some matter increases (the sun shines) the entropy of neighboring matter decreases as a result (photosynthesis). Life actually requires the entropy of matter in order to exist and yes EVOLVE. Werner's claim that genetic information cannot organize itself is patently false. He'd be wise to have a talk with Ken Miller, a truly renowned and respected biologist and information scientist.

By the way, Ken does believe in God. But he is smart enough and honest enough not to let his faith interfere with his objective study of the natural world.

Answer 3

Mutation allows for new characteristics. For example, a bacteria may have a gene for a resistance to penicillan. As they duplicate themselves, some copies of this gene are mutated -- most lessen resistance even to penicillan, but a few increase the resistance or provide a wider spectrum of resistance.

In the presence of penicillian, the ones with the better genes will survive even the high dose. Suddenly exposed to another, the ones with wider spectrum of resistance will survive.

It doesn't take much to thoroughly change the chemical structure of a protein. Most of these changes are neutral (due to the massive redundancy in DNA->amino acid translation matrix), most of the remaining ones are bad, but a few turn out to be good.

And yes, this IS a form of new information... but before you cry, "Violation of Second Law of Thermodynamics," remember that Earth is not a closed system, and entropy in an open system CAN decrease if it is offset by a larger increase elsewhere (oh, say, an increase in genetic information at the expense of huge amounts of thermal energy from the sun which provides the energy for life on this planet in general).

-------

Here, try this one on for size.

During transcription, a gene is erroneously copied twice. It is a digestive enzyme of some value. Because the duplicate provides no benefit or hinderance, it is evolutionarily neutral.

However, after a few mutations occur, one copy codes for an enzyme useful for breaking down clots. It's still useful as a digestive enzyme but it's great also for clotting management.

Since one copy has changed and produced a useful gene, and the other remains the same, digestion is not affected (no loss of information) while a new enzyme is formed (new information).

Why digestion and clotting, as an example?

Because this is actually a fact -- mammals clotting relies on an enzyme with a direct evolutionary link to a digestive enzyme which also still is used.

------

Yes, I am a scientist, thank you.

Answer 4

Things mutate constantly, most mutations are no good, so they make the creature weaker or inferior, that is not passed on, as that creature doesn't thrive.
If a mutation gives a slight advantage, it will be passed on, assuming that the creature survives to breed.

People's colour in different lands is a form of evolution. Black people are better adapted to survive in hot lands, any white or lighter people that were in with the first inhabitants of that land would have suffered, eventually their gene would no longer be passed on, as they would have not thrived to breed.

Some races have tendances to illnesses, and immunity to others as a racial trait. This is a form of evolution.

Evolution can be as little as a genetic change (mutation) that might give you an advantage with regard to say, malaria, then you would be better suited in that land.This is how super bugs happen. We misuse antibiotics, a strain evolves that is immune to the medicine. It has evolved. It is better suited to it's environment.
That is evolution happening right now, it's there in front of us. An organism changes, and survives the medication, it has changed.

Changes in cells that cause cancer could be seen as a mutation getting out of control, a bad change.

Most early DNA is still there, it is in a sequence of the DNA that is no longer used, but it's 'footprints' are still there.
This is how they can compare species and see who is related to who. We are 90%+ the same as the great apes.

This is not from an 'alleged' unbiased website, it's stuff I am interested in, and have learned about from science journals and others. Interestingly, I could also discuss your bible with you too, as I have read a lot of that from a purely academic angle.

Answer 5

Genetic mutation causes greater variation. Natural selection acts on those mutations across a population.

And BTW, a genetic mutation that is selected against doesn't necessarily disappear completely from the population. In some cases the genes necessary for that trait remain, but are inactive due to differences in trait dominance relative to other genes.

Genetics and evolution are very complex and understanding them is not helped when you try to dumb down and oversimplify their processes as you are doing with this question.

P.S. this question should not be in "religion and spirituality" if you *really* want answers to your question. Ask in a scientific forum.

Answer 6

"An organism may possess some inheritable trait"

Genetic mutation creates new traits.

Ex. A rabbit is born with a genetic mutation that has altered the structure of it's inner ear. By chance, it allows the rabbit to hear better. This rabbit has a better chance of survival and will pass the gene on to it's offspring thus increasing the incidence of the new gene. As time goes by, as each generation multiplies, this gene might become the dominant gene as these rabbits are not as easy to catch as prey then the one without the mutation.

Is that too hard to understand?

Answer 7

Gene duplication.

Genes are occasionally duplicated during replication (at the cost of another daughter cell which is unlikely to survive because it is missing a gene). The process has been observed. Once you have two copies of the gene, you can have your cake and eat it too. One copy retains the original capabilities, while the other can mutate to gain new capabilities.

This is the information gain -- observed and fully consistent with the structure of the genome, especially "superfamilies".

Answer 8

Asking us to respond to your question without citing mutation is like asking me to answer "What is 1 + 1= ?" and then saying, "Stop telling me the answer is 2. You keep repeating that like some kind of dogma." Well, I'm sorry. In this case, the answer is 2. Regarding your question, the answer is, "mutation adds new genetic information." Your source and your assertions are just plain wrong. I'm not saying it to be rude, it is true. You deny that mutation adds new genetic information. Okay. How do viruses and bacteria become drug-resistant? Are you saying they already had the genetic information inside of them to resist penicillin? Then why didn't they resist it the first time?

Answer 9

Mutation of genes - which is an inevitable process having quite a number of origins including copying errors and natural background radiation - leads to new characteristics. These are trivial to observe every day - three members of my partners family have an illness caused by a spontaneously occuring genetic mutation.

No error. No mystery. Just solid, provable, daily observable science.

Answer 10

Genes are never permanently lost, they just go into recession and get "switched off". And new genes are added when the mating process takes place or when a mutation occurs. Please read a real science book once in a while instead of visiting a "Christian biased" website.

EDIT: "No, I am not a scientist, but I venture to say none of you are, either....(if I'm wrong, correct me)" I am correcting you. I have a degree in Medical Geneticist Researching from the American College of Medical Genetics and I work as a Genetics Laboratory Research Assistant. Any good researcher know to research a lot of sources before submitting a hypothesis. You can't place any definitive facts off of one or two sources. Anything else you want to know?