Major technical Problem with Evolution

[anchorman]

I have been doing some research and I am unable to find an example where genetic information has been added to a life form due to the mechanisms that evolutionists use to explain how single cell organisms eventually evolved to higher more complex organisms such as man. In order for evolution to remain science's primary (really only) explanation regarding the origins of life, it is essential that science demonstrate
how large amounts of genetic information are gained through natural means. (Keep in mind that science has still not demonstrated through natural or even super lab means how life can come from a lifeless environment. but that is a different problem.)

I have found not one example where the mechanism of natural selection adds genetic information to life forms. A population of moths that were predominately one color but are now another because of a change in its environment doesn’t show an increase in genetic information. It simply shows the information that was already present.

Regarding mutations, tests on fruit flies where radiation was used to generate mutations only caused "monstrosities". A leg or an eye grew in the wrong spot, in other words new information was not created...existing information was simply misdirected. In the case of germs mutating and becoming resistant to medicine, "Interestingly, where this happens, there is no clear-cut evidence of information arising. All such mutations appear to be losses of information, degenerative changes. For example, loss of a control gene may enhance resistance to penicillin."

The focus of debate should be on genetic information increase through the natural mechanisms of evolution.

Off the subject I do not believe that creation should be taught in the class room, however I do believe that more attention needs to be focused in the class room on discussing the problems with evolution.

[jwu]

Please define "information". What is it, and how do you measure it?

I suppose in the end it boils down to the claim that the second law of thermodynamics somehow applies to information theory, doesn't it?

That aside, you have quoted from AiG without giving credit to the source.

jwu

[bernee51]

In order for evolution to remain science's primary (really only) explanation regarding the origins of life, ...

the theory of evolution does not puport to explain the 'origins of life' You are making the very common mistake of mixing it up with abiogenesis. I suggest you do some reading somewhere other than websites proming a creationist worldview.

Have you looked here?

it is essential that science demonstrate
how large amounts of genetic information are gained through natural means.

why? creatinists don't 'demonstrate' any such thing.

I have found not one example where the mechanism of natural selection adds genetic information to life forms.

'natural selection' does not add genetic material. It acts more like a filter. If a mutation is not fit to survive it will be 'selected out' naturally.

regards

[ST88]

I have been doing some research and I am unable to find an example where genetic information has been added to a life form due to the mechanisms that evolutionists use to explain how single cell organisms eventually evolved to higher more complex organisms such as man.

Firstly, don't confuse "more genetic material" with how evolution or natural selection works. The addition of genetic material does not imply a gradual arrow of time as organisms get larger. Humans, for example have less genetic material than most amphibians -- 3.3 billion vs. 10-100 billion DNA base pairs. The whisk fern, Psilotum Nudum, has 250 billion base pairs.

There is something called the C value paradox. The C value is the ratio of gamete genetic material (DNA base pairs) to the complexity of the organism (the number of expressed genes). This value is not constant over the animal and plant kingdoms -- that is, the amount of genetic material is not strictly related to the number of expressed genes in an organism. Humans have around 25,000-30,000 genes among the 3.3 billion base pairs, but the rice plant has around 60,000 genes among its 480 million base pairs.
Here is an interesting table of base pairs vs. number of genes in various organisms.

One explanation for this is possible malfunctions in meiosis. Non-disjunction is when gametes contain more than one copy of an entire chromosome, i.e., genetic material in the zygote is increased by 50%. Sometimes these malfunctions are harmful to the organism and sometimes they aren't (in humans, this is almost always harmful, but in certain varieties of corn, this is not). If this mutation is not harmful, it could be passed down from there, causing the increase in genetic material.

Secondly, as is shown above, it is possible to gain genetic material through malfunctions of meiosis.

Thirdly, it is possible for an organism to constantly undergo changes in the amount of its genetic material. Genetic instability of the Streptomyces chromosome says this:

Linear chromosomes may also allow for easier interspecies gene transfer, because single cross-overs between linear chromosomes and conjugative linear plasmids can exchange large segments of genetic material, which can then be transferred at high frequency into other strains.

This species of bacteria not only excahnges genetic material between one another, individuals also can absorb free-floating genetic material (DNA recovered from other bacteria that have subsequently died) from other species of bacteria, and keep it for its own use.

[Jose]

It's been known for a long time that errors in recombination during meiosis can result in gene duplications. Sometimes, it is possible to get duplications of large amounts of chromosomes. Once a duplication has occurred, it is easy for one of the two copies of a gene to mutate in one way, while the other copy mutates in a different way. They don't do it on purpose, of course, since mutations cannot be directed. Nonetheless, this kind of gene duplication both increases the amount of DNA that an organism has, it also increases the complexity of the genome. It provides genes that can acquire new functions, without disabling the original function. This solves a number of the problems that are often raised about how new functions could evolve from old ones. You don't have to inactivate the old function to create the new one. You can start with a duplicated gene, and do both.

[anchorman]

to Jose: you have given no examples. Please give a confirmed example where there has been an increase in genetic information. To go from a single cell organism to man in 2 billion years there should be observable evidence of major increases in genetic information.

[Jose]

To anchorman: what kind of examples do you want? Examples of "little information in single-celled organisms" and "more information in multicellular organisms"? I believe you know of these, and don't need the numbers. Do you want documentation of each increase in information content from the progenote from which all life descended, up until the evolution of Man? If so, you have to recognize that ancient DNA does not fossilize, so that particular series is currently inaccessible to investigation. Do you want examples of more recent gene duplications, such as the alcohol dehydrogenase genes of Drosophila, in which some species have one gene, and others have a duplication in which the expression patterns have diverged?

You may say that a duplication of one gene is insufficient to account for the major increase in information that seems to have occurred during evolution. However, if you consider a gene duplication occurring as infrequently as every 1000 years, and you allow the 2 billion years you have mentioned, you arise at a possible 2 million duplications. A single organism with one gene (a silly idea, of course) could give rise to descendents with 2 million genes--and no known organism has nearly so many.

Nonetheless, here are some references that you might find helpful:
Hominid gene duplications, yeast gene duplications, and nuclear receptor genes.

[Lucifer]

Ahem, polyploidy? That's when an extra set of chromosomes are created. I think it's an error in the copying mechanism of the cell. When the cell fertilizes with another polyploid cell, then you get some variation. Polyploidy often happens in plants, and is most effective because they are self-fertilizing, and can fertilize their own polyploid cells. Some polyploid cells don't fertilize with non-polyploid cells, or the resulting offspring does not have a complete set of chromosomes that can be divided by neiosis properly.

[Lucifer]

In case this wasn't clear, I was referring to Anchorman's post. I used polyploidy as an example of the increase in genetic information, and plants are exemplary of this.