Gene Mutation Said Linked to Evolution

Science - AP ^ | 2004-03-24 | JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA

[Stone Mountain]

No known creature has 'evolved' by observed mutations.

Do you consider bacteria creatures?

[kkindt]

I don't disagree with the fact that mutations produce variations in a population regarding its DNA but where you are wrong and I am right is that these variations NEVER give the individual better survival possibilities. The LOSS of information for a being does not ADD anything to the being that is good. If it survives a disease because it has LOST information in its genetic code it is only a matter of time before this loss of information results in that strain of being losing out and dying out.

Show me ONE mutation that is good for a being - something where information is added by a mutation not lost.

[Junior]

There is not necessarily any "loss of information." If we define information as genes that code, then slight variations in the gene could (and often lead) to slightly different resulting proteins. This would be the same amount of "information" but with a slightly different meaning. Sometimes genes are duplicated in the replication process. The second set of genes codes for the same protein as the first, so there is no loss of information. However, mutations can crop up on the second set of genes without affecting the functioning of the first set; this occasionally leads to new proteins the body can put into play.

The biggest problem in these arguments is defining of terms. I defined "information" above as coding genes. However, technically all the genes, coding and non-coding, are information. However, since you consistently go on about "loss of information" one might as well discard the non-coding genes as changes therein seldom affect the organism (sometimes they do, however, when a non-coding section becomes a coding section -- maybe a "gaining of information?").

We (well, at least folks who study evolutionary biology) already are aware that genomes can grow through gene duplication mentioned above, and through viral insertions. There are evidently a couple of other ways it can grow too, but I am unfamiliar with those and would not think to post without further research. Such growth would be seen as a "gaining of information" as it gives the organism more spare genes to play with.

[kkindt]

You are correct regarding definitions. This is critical. Equivocation with the use of terms and their meaning is commonplace with evolutionists especially regarding terms like "code", "information", "mutation", etc. These terms in the dictionary, their common meanings, are never used by evolutionists because if they did the nonsense of evolutionary jabber would become obvious to one and all. Just one example:

"code" - look it up in any dictionary and the common definition is "code - a set of rules or principles or laws (especially written ones)
Synonyms: codification
2. code - a coding system used for transmitting messages requiring brevity or secrecy
3. code - (computer science) the symbolic arrangement of data or instructions in a computer program or the set of such instructions

Any of these definitions subverts the idea that the genetic code is non-intelligently generated. All of these defintions assume a coder - a programmer.

So evolutionists cheat when it comes to use of terms. They mean something entirely different but do not want to use the real word for what they mean.

What is the real word for a chemical combination of molecules that has resulted by random, unplanned, non-designed forces of nature? I would call it a chemical hodgepodge without meaning and without purpose. Or you could call it goo or a glob. Once you assign purpose to chemical combinations you have moved out of pure non-design language into design language and evolutionists can't let that happen.

[Junior]

Dictionary definitions and what scientists mean by "coding" are two different things. When biologists use the term, they are not implying an underlying intelligence -- any more than meteorologists imply underlying intelligence in the formation of snowflakes or hurricanes.