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.

[ENIGMA]

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.

Why arbitrarily pick mammals?

A major problem going on today with antibiotics is antibiotic resistance that bacteria are developing, rendering them immune to whatever type of antibiotic their colony has been beseiged with. The reason that we see bacterial resistance develop so fast is that the generation time for bacteria is only a few minutes, as opposed to a couple decades for humans.

Gaining the ability to be immune to certain kinds of 'toxins' would be considered a gain of "Genetic Information", yes?

Seeing as how evolution explains such developments easily while creationism is frigging clueless on the matter merely gives more points for evolution.

[anchorman]

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.

Also it is my understanding that microscopic life becoming resistant to antibiotics is because of a loss of information not a gain.

[juliod]

If over time, slime turned into Albert Einstien than we should be able to witness big changes all around us.

Why would you expect "big changes"?

Also it is my understanding that microscopic life becoming resistant to antibiotics is because of a loss of information not a gain.

That's because creationists don't understand what "information" means, nor "mutation".

In any case, the answer to your original question is yes, there are many examples of this. For example, gene duplications are common in higher animals. Many genes are present in the genome in multiple copies. This duplication is an increase in information. It gives an advantage to the organism because there is less chance of genetic disease through mutation to a single locus.

DanZ

[anchorman]

You didnt answer the question.


a duplication of genes could never create a feather on lets say a cat. copying the letter A (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) will not give you (B). Making "multiple copies" doenst solve this problem for evolutionists.

[juliod]

You didnt answer the question.

Sorry, I did answer the question. You just want to change it after the fact.

a duplication of genes could never create a feather on lets say a cat.

The duplicate gene may then be free to mutate into new forms.

copying the letter A (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) will not give you (B).

Tut tut. My advice to you is to not pretend you understand things you don't.

Let's say I encode the letter 'A' with the symbol '1'. And let's say I encode the letter 'B' with '11'. Therefore a duplication of 'A' is '11' which equals 'B'. Pretty neat.

this problem for evolutionists.

There is no problem, except in the lack of knowledge of creationists.

DanZ

[anchorman]

Nice Try!!! You can do better than that. Also why the insults?

You are avoiding the question

I specifically asked for a mammal. And an observed change. dont give me microscopic, dead end, debated 4,000,000 times already, evolutionist hocuspocus.

Let me help you out. Some beatles have survived on islands because they lost their wings due to a mutation...the winged beatles blew out to sea.

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.

Dont give me gene duplication or gene duplication masked. 1000 legs do not equal feathers no matter how you put them together. Nice math trick but I aint fallin for it. Lets stick with an example that you can see without a microsope. That shouldnt be a problem for someone that beleives we came from something that can only be seen with a microscope.

[Nyril]

I specifically asked for a mammal. And an observed change. dont give me microscopic, dead end, debated 4,000,000 times already, evolutionist hocuspocus.

Sure. Even though you've failed to explain what you mean by loss of information, I don't see a way you can say my next example isn't anything but a gain of it.

The human eye is typically trichromatic. You see using the various signals vectored along three colors. However, a small number of people are tetrachromates. Don't believe me? Click here

Would there be any practical advantages to tetrachromacy? Dr. Jordan notes that a mother could more easily spot when her children were pale or flushed, and therefore ill. Mrs. M reports that she has always been able to match even subtle colors from memory -- buying a bag, for example, to match shoes she hasn't laid eyes on for months. And computers, color monitors, and the Internet raise a whole raft of possibilities. Just as someone with normal three-color vision surfs rings around a dichromat on the Internet, a tetrachromat, looking at a special computer screen based on four primary colors rather than the standard three, could theoretically dump data into her head faster than the rest of us.

[Nyril]

I've broken my post up into 2 parts. I didn't want my direct answer to your question to be obscured in my little cloud of a quote-war below.

I sincerely question your grasp of evolutionary theory, as well as your understanding of precisely how chemistry works. Also, at this point I would like to question your knowledge of biology. To justify my remarks, here is what you have written. I have highlighted the passages in which the author demonstrates this specific trait I have accused the author of having.

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?

First. What is this genetic information you speak of? Genes are not like little computer disks, blank from the start onto which programs can be written, they are a complex assembly of chemicals. If you change DNA, different molecules are fabricated in the cell, and a difference can be noted in the creature. It is not information in a sense, and I see no way in which you can classify this as an increase or decrease.

Second. If a mammal has some sort of advantage over another, that mammal is more likely to breed. If for some reason only tall people are allowed to breed, you will see more tall children being born, and the trend continues.

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.

Strawman. You very clearly do not understand the subject matter. No one that believes in evolution believes that it should occur as quickly as you want it to occur, or in the way in which you want it to occur.

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.

Nonsequitor. Your sentence makes no sense. A belief in evolution does not require a belief that we came from slime, and indeed I doubt you can find an evolutionist that puts forward this accusation. Regardless, if something came from something else, why would it need to change still?

Also it is my understanding that microscopic life becoming resistant to antibiotics is because of a loss of information not a gain.

Still no definition of information yet.

a duplication of genes could never create a feather on lets say a cat.

I agree. So what?

copying the letter A (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA) will not give you (B).

It happens if you have a leaky pen. Or bad paper. Or then get that paper wet. Or if someone knocks your hand while copying it.

[gluadys]

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.

Well, not trying to sound arrogant in return, but do you know what a gene is? What is it composed of?

Do you know what a gene does?

Do you know what a mutation is and what it does to a gene? And how it affects what a gene does?

Do you know what genetic information is? Can you describe how it is measured?

How can you tell if information is lost or gained?

What if the amount of information is the same, but the actual information is different?

Why is doubling genes not counted as an increase in information if it leads to a change in a character trait? Especially one that is a survival advantage.

If you do know all these things, great. Tell the rest of us.
If you don't, why are you asking your question in the first place?