No, I think it’s a good example of natural selection in action, which is merely selecting information that already exists.
That was the claim and that information most certainly did not "already exist" in any manner other than "yes, the DNA sequence and genes already existed, yes the enzymes already existed and yes the base pairs already existed for the enzyme to screw up in replication and toss in the wrong base-pair"...but it was not in the "information" to begin with ...it wasn't part of the DNA sequence or the genome/phenome in any manner...it's a new gene altered from an already existing gene and a new DNA sequence because of a single base-pair mutation that happened to alter the genome without altering viability but altering genetic fitness.......and I don't get how anyone could say that "it was already there" when it very simply was not "there."
Ironically, I don't know genetics off the top of my head as much as I used to 10 years ago, but in my many years of schooling (including genetics and population genetics) and working in a biological field (protein chemistry)...I've never not once heard the term "metainfo" concerning genetics, evolution, DNA, Chromosomes...and neither has the intern sitting next to me that just took genetics at Northeastern last semester.....and upon looking up this foreign word........I get "creationontheweb.com" as the #1 hit concerning genetics/evolution and don't see anything else other than IT stuff (that call it metadata) and am not wasting any more time looking into that word as it makes me smell a creationist creation......just like ID is a creationist creation to seem non-creationist.....but be creationist.
[[ut that in no way has anything to do with altering a specific gene through a specific mutation to produce a specific change in expression in a viable offspring.....a change that was not previously a part of the genome.]]
You just described a trait change- which falls fully within species specific parameters and is not infact an addition of new non species specific addition of information which is required for macroevolution.
[[Most often than not, a DNA base pair mutation has either no affect on gene expression or creates a non-viable offspring which is removed from the gene pool....as a built in defense mechanism.]]
Precisely- these are hte parameters - the species specific paramters of hwich I speak- You are not adding any info- you are simply changing info already present, but which again, fall within the paremeters of species specific microevolution- losing info isn’t akin to gaining non species specific info an essential requirement for macroevolution
[[it’s a new gene]]
No it isn’t a ‘new’ gene- it’s an altered gene- the info was altered- not created from nothing.
[[and I don’t get how anyone could say that “it was already there” when it very simply was not “there.”]]
It WAS there- it simply got altered- and that alteration again, falls squarely within species specific informaiton and allowances. This is what limits how far info can be changed, and which prevents species from moving beyond hteir own kind- the only way to do that would be to introduce non species psecific info that introduce info beyond the paramters for the species.
[[I get “creationontheweb.com” as the #1 hit concerning genetics/evolution and don’t see anything else other than IT stuff (that call it metadata) and am not wasting any more time looking into that word]]
That’s the article you shoudl read- whether you like the implicaitons or not, you opinion should NOT bias you agaisnt the informaiton included in that article for if it does, then you display not objective inquirey, but subjective bias. Metainformaiton can not arise naturally- there are two huge discussion here on FR under the title ‘The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE’ here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2172630/posts
and “Life’s irreducible structure” here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163122/posts
[[it wasn’t part of the DNA sequence or the genome/phenome in any manner]]
Again, yes it was- it simply got changed- if you have a bike, and hte manufacturer manufactures straight peddles for awhile, but later the machinery has a mistake happen, which results in the production of bent peddles, these are still peddles- al lthe info present, but a slight change causes the produciton to come out with bent peddles. The mistake hansn’t introduced info not specific to that ‘species’ it simply gets changed, and you certainly can’t claim the machinery underwent a change that results in the production of anythign other than peddles ie: macroevolution- this is simply a case of ‘microevolution’ inthat info already present gets changed-
Not hte best analogy- I’ll work on better one tonight- but we’re certainly not seeing any macroevolution goign on when traits get changed and still fall squarely within species specific paramters- By hte way- the metainfo is forward looking and antyicipates change, and adjusts on the fly- not just adjusting that which is changed, but EVERY system and subsystem that gets affected by the change- again, all anticpiated by hte metainfo that HAS to be present first-
You really should read those articles and discussions I linked to- VERY itneresting if you can read it objectively without simply dismissing everythign right fro mthe start