If that paper is above Percy's pay grade as he put it, it's certainly above mine. I read what I was able to read, and nothing you said gave evidence that new alleles actually exist. As I keep saying the "evidence" of supposed positive selection shown by increased frequency is an illusion if the allele in question is really a neutral mutation, which would be passed on and easily look like increased frequency based on your assumption.
You seem to think that paper actually shows that new alleles give immunity to different parasites, but it doesn't. It assumes it.
I took that hilarious post to the other thread. Message 268
Bump for CRR - copious quantities of genetic information
From the "Debunking the Evolutionary God of Selection" thread. Message 194
Does the theory of evolution require a gain of copious quantities of genetic information?
Yes it does. Both in Darwin's formulation and in the modern neo-Darwinian version, although Darwin of course knew nothing of genes or DNA.
Both versions believe that the all life on Earth is ascended from primitive ancestors. Darwin lacked the evidence to definitely say only one ancestor but he made it clear that it was his “belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype.” Most proponents of the modern version, on the evidence of DNA, definitely conclude there was a Last Universal Common Ancestor.
In both versions this common ancestor is envisaged as some simple life form of minimal complexity.
In the modern version with a genetic basis this is supposed to be a single celled organism with a minimal functioning genome, perhaps only a few hundred genes. Some believe this ancestor arose naturally on Earth from non-living matter, some propose panspermia, and some believe it was created by God.
However this original life form did not contain or produce more than a fraction of the genes and proteins life today. Nor did it have multi-cellularity, specialised tissues, organs, and appendages. All of these are supposed to have been produced by evolution over billions of years. “[F]rom so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
Now I say that to produce all these new attributes would require a vast increase in genetic information. Not only to produce all the new proteins but also to regulate them and to produce the multitude of body plans we see today.
Some object to calling this “genetic information”, saying such a term is meaningless until it can be measured and quantified. Even “Shannon Information” could not be measured and quantified until Claude Shannon published “A Mathematical Theory of Communication” in 1948. This did not mean such information did not exist before then. Just so, even if it can't currently be quantified no reasonable person doubts that this genetic information exists. As I have shown in previous posts progress is being made in measuring and quantifying functional information; but the information already exists or it could not measured.
Conclusion: The Theory of Evolution; • Has a direction. It is attempting to explain microbes to man, not the reverse • Requires the development of multicellularity, specialised tissues, organs, and complex body plans • This development requires the production of new genes and genetic information; in copious quantities
Rather than saying that a theory itself has a direction, it might be better to say that an explanation of natural history would have to explain the direction that that history has taken. That includes the emergence of many complex organisms in the latter part of that history from relatively simple forms, and the presence of an enormous quantity of species from one or several originals.
Put that way, I broadly agree. Although biological "information" is difficult to define and measure, I agree that there appears to have been an enormous increase.
It is the theory of evolution that relies on the gain of copious quantities of genetic information. Creationists are just asking how the theory can be taken seriously when the evidence is that the mutation selection mechanism appears to be insufficient to explain where that information comes from.
Here we have the type of creationist claim that I mentioned in the O.P.
I'd like to ask CRR and any other creationists for their own views on this. Is it that mutation and selection can produce no new information at all, or is it that they just can't produce enough?
Walkingstick insects originally started out as winged insects (blue at start and top row). That diversified.
And some lost wings (red). And diversified.
And some regained wings (blue again). And diversified.
And one lost wings again (Lapaphus parakensis, below, red again).
And this doesn't even address the ones where one sex (usually male) has wings and the other sex doesn't (the red includes these, so it is hard to determine from this graphic how many times the female sex gained and lost wings independent of the winged males).
So which species have more information, which have gained information and which have lost information?
I would think that those that lose wings would lose information, but that those that regain wings must then gain that information back or replace it with new information.
It also appears that this regaining wings information gain must be "copious" enough for several species to evolve.
The best known way for new coding genes to be formed is via duplication followed by neo/sub functionalization. However, researchers are increasingly finding evidence of new "orphan" genes forming from stretches of non-coding and apparently non-functional DNA.
If that's not new information, what is?
Here they find new lineage specific genes that have rapidly become important, sometimes essential, in fruit flies.
How non-coding DNA gives rise to new protein-coding genes (de novo genes) is not well understood. Recent work has revealed the origins and functions of a few de novo genes, but common principles governing the evolution or biological roles of these genes are unknown. To better define these principles, we performed a parallel analysis of the evolution and function of six putatively protein-coding de novo genes described in Drosophila melanogaster. Reconstruction of the transcriptional history of de novo genes shows that two de novo genes emerged from novel long non-coding RNAs that arose at least 5 MY prior to evolution of an open reading frame. In contrast, four other de novo genes evolved a translated open reading frame and transcription within the same evolutionary interval suggesting that nascent open reading frames (proto-ORFs), while not required, can contribute to the emergence of a new de novo gene. However, none of the genes arose from proto-ORFs that existed long before expression evolved. Sequence and structural evolution of de novo genes was rapid compared to nearby genes and the structural complexity of de novo genes steadily increases over evolutionary time. Despite the fact that these genes are transcribed at a higher level in males than females, and are most strongly expressed in testes, RNAi experiments show that most of these genes are essential in both sexes during metamorphosis. This lethality suggests that protein coding de novo genes in Drosophila quickly become functionally important.