Challenge for Evolutionists

[anchorman]

I am not trying to sound arrogant...a lot of what is discussed on this website is out of the scope of my expertise, however Here is a challenge:

Has science observed or witnessed a mutation on any mammal that increased genetic information which made the mammal superior to others in its species and as a result the mammal was able to pass that information on to its offspring?

Mutations that cause information to be lost or mutations that cause genes to be copied dent count. different Information has to be added. for instance a beaver must grow feathers.

[perfessor]

Hello anchorman. I must say, this is a rather strange thread, thanks to your original post. Would a beaver with feathers really convince you that evolution occurs? That would be interesting indeed - since it would actually destroy evolutionary theory in the process.

You see, birds didn't evolve because lizards suddenly sprouted feathers. Antelope didn't evolve because sheep suddenly sprouted long legs and horns. No one claims that evolution works that way. So why are you demanding that sort of demonstration?

Also, I second the motion that you need to provide a definition of "information". This is important because you have added it as an extra requirement - that mutations must not only be beneficial, but must also increase information. To me, this seems like a strawman - not a necessary part of evolution. Why do you require it if the theory does not?

This would work except the loss of wings is not a gain, it is a loss. A new system was not formed. Also a beatle is not a mammal.

Nonetheless, a mutation allowed speciation through selection - this is the "standard model" for evolutionary change.

Oh, and I can't resist - John, Paul, George, and Ringo - all mammals.

[perfessor]

After further thought:

OK anchorman, I understand your objection - you contend (I believe) that a loss of features cannot be considered an advancement. Does that mean that you agree that evolution is possible, but only "in the negative"?

Try this one: [facetious - but only a little]
First, there were monkeys.
The monkeys lost their tails.
Then they lost the biomechanical advantages that made it so easy to climb trees.
Then they lost the ability to run around on all fours - because of their shorter, weaker forelimbs, the poor survivors were forced to walk upright.
Adding insult to injury, they lost the ability to grow hair all over their bodies.
They lost a portion of their jaw musculature - that had attachments to the cranium. As a result, their jaws were smaller, weaker.
This allowed the cranium to grow - scant compensation for losing an effective fighting tool.
They even lost a chromosome pair - instead of 24 pairs, they now only had 23.
The name of this ill-fated species? homo sapiens!
[/facetious - but only a little]

[juliod]

Also why the insults?

No insults! Just a few mild rebukes for you making forceful statements about things when your information is clearly lacking.

You are avoiding the question

No, I answered the question, directly and immediately. Obviously when you read that this was an unanswerable objection to evolution you didn't expect us to come up with instant, obvious, and easy-to-understand rebuttals.

I gave you the simplest possible way of "increasing information", duplication. Then I explained why that is an advantage. This type of mutation is present in thousands of examples in mammals.

Nice math trick but I aint fallin for it.

It's not a trick, as you would realize if you knew high-school level genetics. A single duplication of one nucleotide changes not only that codon, but all the codons that follow in the same gene.

DanZ

[Vladd44]

Has science observed or witnessed a mutation on any mammal that increased genetic information which made the mammal superior to others in its species and as a result the mammal was able to pass that information on to its offspring?

Actually I am seeking a mammal. If over time, slime turned into Albert Einstien than we should be able to witness big changes all around us. And an example of a mammal should not be hard to find.

If we consider visual evidence (The obvious expectation you were looking for)- we have @ most since 1839 - present for an observation period. The first photographs were taken, which would begin to give us a credible record to compare. (166 years)

In an universe of 4 billion years, 166 years is comparable to around 100 seconds in a 75 year old persons life. Not exactly a significant window of observation. So, stipulating a timeframe of 4 billion years from amino acids (Your sludge) to Albert, it would be quite absurd to expect to see physical proof in such a limited timespan.

This isnt even taking into consideration that most of the significant changes possible would not be noticalbe on the visual level. However DNA research has been around considerably less than photography, the comparison would only be more extreme.

OFC your argument shows a lack of anchor in the science dept. And please dont tell me about building on rock.

Twenty amino acids make up mamallian protein. Yet they are the makeup of hundreds of thousands of different proteins. Doesnt matter what it is, arm, leg, feather, tongue or brain. The genetic material is made up of the same basic material. Stem Cells are a perfect example, it is the common aspects of our genetic code that is so obvious. Your judging physical makeup by visual observation. A flawed concept from its origin.

Also, someone attempted to use a binary approach to explain something to you. If you had bothered to listen you may have at least understood what they were trying to explain to you.

I am not trying to sound arrogant...

Not trying to sound arrogant, and assuming you are a christian. Do you have any proof he/she/it exists? Maybe a feather or something?

[Jose]

Has science observed or witnessed a mutation on any mammal that increased genetic information which made the mammal superior to others in its species and as a result the mammal was able to pass that information on to its offspring?

Mutations that cause information to be lost or mutations that cause genes to be copied dent count. different Information has to be added. for instance a beaver must grow feathers.

These are, I believe, some of the standard questions that people are supposed to ask evolutionists to embarrass them. The answers are pretty simple, though.

Do you like ice cream? Imagine not being able to eat it without getting sick. This is the case for most people in the world. Some of us, though, are descended from early Europeans who carried a new mutation that "adds information" to the human genome. Like all other mammals, humans turn on the lactase gene during infancy, and are able to drink milk. When they are weaned, most humans turn off the lactase gene. Thereafter, they are lactose-intolerant. Being unable to digest lactose, they get sick when they eat milk or milk products that contain lactose--because their digestive bacteria eat the lactose, multiply, and give them digestive discomfort. People with the mutation continue to express the lactase gene during adulthood. Therefore, they can drink milk without discomfort.

In ancient European cultures, this was an advantage, since it allowed people to obtain protein easily from the milk of cows.

OK, there's a useful mutation in a mammal. I don't think it makes anyone superior to anyone else, but in the context of a milk-drinking culture, it apparently helped, and was selected for.

What about adding information? Well, you don't like the idea of gene duplications for some reason, but suppose we take it a bit further.

A --> AAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAA --> AAAAABAAAA
AAAAABAAAA --> AAAAABAACA
AAAAABAACA --> DAAAABAACA

etc, etc, etc. Once there is a gene duplication, mutations can occur in the duplicate copy without changing the original copy. The duplicate copy, now altered, is different from anything that was present before. That's new information.

There's really nothing special about these kinds of questions. They are not difficult to answer, since many examples exist.

On the other hand, the beavers-with-feathers idea is interesting. Why do you consider this to be a reasonable thing to expect? This, too, should be a simple question. What do you say?

[Yarr the Pirate]

Has science observed or witnessed a mutation on any mammal that increased genetic information which made the mammal superior to others in its species and as a result the mammal was able to pass that information on to its offspring?

Invalid question. This is an interesting question, but to call it a 'challenge to evolutionists' is misleading. If someone were unable to answer it, this would not disprove evolution. Evolution is not always a gain of genetic information, many times it can be the loss.

If your question were: "Has there ever been observed a situation where an animal made a change to their genetic material by mutation and was then better suited to its overall environment and its descendants survived longer than his fellow members' descendants?" and an evolutionary scientist could not answer that, well then you would have your 'challenge.'

However, an evolutionary scientist would have no problem answering the second, honest question.

An evolutionary scientist would, however, have a problem answering the first question which is a blatant strawman.

[anchorman]

Nyril

your example of a trichromat and tetrachomat was interesting, however you didnt mention that a tetrachromat still has not been confirmed. The scientist in the article you linked to even says that they are not ready to confirm the finding of a tetrachromat at this point in the study. Even so...I find it interesting that if the discovery of a tetrachromat is confirmed, that this would be, "the most amazing human mutation ever discovered". Given that science says that multi-cell organisms have been around less than 1 billion years...how could evolution account for all the diversity we see around us moving at this slow of a rate. Even many evolutionists admit that this is a problem. At some point in the history of life...major evolutionary jumps had to have taken place or there simply woulnt be enough time for evolution to account for what we see today. There are millions of species on earth. I believe that in the last 100 years that we should be able to have documented major evolutionary leaps if evolution explains all of lifes diversity. I would define an evolutionary leap as a visual change in a species that adds a new complex structure to that species that has never been documented as previously possessing. A new complex structure would be something like a turtle growing wings or an organisms that has no sight developing eyes.

[anchorman]

Professor

(facetious but only a little)

"first there were monkeys" (Scientists still cant figure out how primates arrived on the scene.. they are an evolutionary mystery)

"monkeys lost their tails" Have you ever witnessed a monkey born without a tail and then pass that trait on to its offspring? And then become the norm.

"They even lost a chromosome pair" If a child was born with out a pair of chromosome do you think that child would live a normal life? I would be willing to bet that the information in the DNA within the chromosomes that have been removed would destroy enough vital information that the child would some die

It is common sense that if all life evolved from a single cell organism Billions of years ago than genetic information must be gained along the way.

If millions of species are on the earth today we should be able to witness evolutionary jumps. These jumps should be visible and show new complex structures. History has not shown these jumps. I am not the only one who believes this. Some evolutionists agree that 1 billion years is simply not enough time to explain the diversity we see today. Believing without seeing....Hmmm sounds more like a faith than a science.

[gluadys]

At some point in the history of life...major evolutionary jumps had to have taken place or there simply woulnt be enough time for evolution to account for what we see today. There are millions of species on earth. I believe that in the last 100 years that we should be able to have documented major evolutionary leaps if evolution explains all of lifes diversity. I would define an evolutionary leap as a visual change in a species that adds a new complex structure to that species that has never been documented as previously possessing. A new complex structure would be something like a turtle growing wings or an organisms that has no sight developing eyes.

Do you really have any concept of how long a million or a billion years is? Most people don't. Somewhere around a few hundred or at most a thousand, any larger number is just "a big number".

And you want major changes in just 100 years? 100 years is a nano-blink of an eye in geological time.

Turtles didn't grow wings themselves. They embarked on a different evolutionary path very early in the history of reptiles. But they do share a common ancestor with other reptiles including the reptilian ancestors of mammals. That ancestor lived about 310 million years ago. And if we follow the line of descent along a different branch we find one group of its descendants developing wings about 230 million years ago (flying reptiles e.g. pterosaurs) another group developing wings about 30 million years later (birds) and still a third group developing wings only about 60 million years ago (bats). So depending on which branch we follow it took 80 million, 110 million or 250 million years to develop wings. In no case were wings developed from one generation to the next, but via a gradual pathway.

As for eyes, hie thee to thy library and check out Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins and read just one chapter "The Forty-fold Path to Enlightenment".

[Nyril]

your example of a trichromat and tetrachomat was interesting, however you didnt mention that a tetrachromat still has not been confirmed. The scientist in the article you linked to even says that they are not ready to confirm the finding of a tetrachromat at this point in the study.

You mean where the article reads:

Preliminary evidence gathered at Cambridge University in 1993 suggests that this woman is a tetrachromat, perhaps the most remarkable human mutant ever identified.

Or when it says

For years now, scientists have known that some fraction of women have four different cone photopigments in their retinas.

Or perhaps

Dr. Jordan reports that of the fourteen test subjects in her study, two showed "exactly" the behavior that would be expected of tetrachromats. "It was very strong evidence for tetrachromacy," she adds. The apparent tetrachromats were Mrs. M, who was identified in the study as cDA1, and another candidate, cDA7.

Yes, there is a part that works against my argument, here it is.

Nevertheless, Dr. Jordan declines to say that she has finally found a tetrachromat, partly because her testing is still a work in progress.

The doctor isn't rushing to publish the work that they found one because the tests aren't done, but as the article said, they know a certain percentage have the extra photopigments, and they have two people that match the predictions made for this potential mutation.

Even many evolutionists admit that this is a problem.

I contend that this is a creationist lie. Produce said scientists, and we'll discuss it.

There are millions of species on earth. I believe that in the last 100 years that we should be able to have documented major evolutionary leaps if evolution explains all of lifes diversity.

We should of documented major evolutionary leaps? Not in this universe. Such a (major) documented change would be excellent evidence against evolution.

A new complex structure would be something like a turtle growing wings or an organisms that has no sight developing eyes.

Again. If you expect to see a new eye, or functional wings in 100 years, you are not expecting evolution to happen, you are expecting fantasy to happen. If you could find such a thing, it would be excellent evidence against evolution.