I had recently read:
"
Information does not have to be increased for the mutation to be beneficial. It has to be increased for the theory of evolution to be plausible. "
I have yet to study anything in genetics and I was wondering, if those of you who know genetics could clarify these statement and tell me wether they are true or if it is all just another creationist misunderstanding.
Here is the entire thing:
There is a fish in the depths of the ocean where the waters are so inky dark that the fish is unable to see. It often swims into the jagged rocky sea bottom in search of food and the rocks cut its eyes and causes infections and sometimes death. The fish has offspring that have eyelids welded shut. The fish now has a barrier between its eyes and the deadly rock. Evolution? Many scientists use it as an example of it...
But was there new information given to the fish to secure its survival? The answer of course is no. The fish traded sight for this mutation. A loss of information. An entire sense is gone to insure its survival in the inky waters. One could argue that the fish could not see to begin with, and this perhaps might be true. But just because you are not using the sense does not mean you are not at a loss when it is stripped from you. This is the loss of information that I was talking about.
INFORMATION - What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things : genetically transmitted information .
The information inside of you was given to you by both sets of parental units. Half of your DNA code was given to you by your father, and half from your mother. There is not one nucleotide base inside of your own body that was not given to you by your parental units. Every individual adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine that make up the Deoxyribonucleic Acid in your body is directly inherited from those two individuals that made you. A faux pas could have been made that gave you an odd combination or a missing piece that made you not like anyone else, possibly in a way that makes you stronger in specific areas... But none of the information that is given to you upon birth can be contributed to any outside factor other than your parental units. Meaning: there are limitations to what this faux pa can do to you . Human beings have the ability to make any number of human combinations within their genetic makeup, but do not have the ability to make anything outside of the human genetic makeup. Two mulattos can create any shade of offspring, but the offspring will still undoubtedly be human and will still undoubtedly only have information in their bodies given to them directly from the parent units.
If you do some deep research into artificial selection you will see the extent of the limitations in our genetic codes. Through artificial selection we have been able to breed larger cows, chickens, and crops for larger and healthier quantities of food product. Alas, there are limits to this. Also, birds have a gene that gives their legs their scaley lizard like appearance, and genes that give them teeth so that they may break open the eggs they are born in. In nature parts of these genes are turned off so that its body can grow feathers for flight and so the teeth will not interfere in the later years of their lives in how they eat. Through artificial selection scientists are able to turn on certain genes already existing in a bird to cover its entirety in scales and to prevent its teeth from going away after it hatches. This gives the bird a slight lizard like appearance, but does not benefit the bird. It loses its ability to fly and can no longer uses its beak in the way nature intended it. The bird ultimately dies without the care of a human being. This may seem like proof of evolution; unfortunately there were no new features given to the bird, only existing features intensified. The DNA is still dependant on the parent units. We have only turned some recessive genes into dominant genes and vice versa. Just enough to fool the scientifically illiterate crowd into believing that they are seeing proof of evolution in full swing. However, these limitations badly damage the theory. The potential offspring in an evolving world should be limitless. It is not. We are unable to produce through artificial selection a creature better suited for the environment any better than natural selection is able to do.
I do not argue that mutations can't be beneficial. I do not argue that mutations can't be genetic. What I'm arguing is that mutations have limitations. These limitations include adding information that can be inherited by offspring, and changing the basic genetic make-up of one organism to another. A two-headed snake is still a snake, a fish without sight is still a fish, and a fanged-featherless bird is still a bird. None of them have anything new in them that separate them from the rest of their species. DNA is unable to produce anything that is not recycled.
The SUPERcell required to start all of life must have had every possible DNA combination stored inside of it in order to branch out into all of the different living things we see today; plants and animals included. The combinations would then have deteriorated from one generation to the next, and we would see a genetic decrease in complexity rather than a genetic increase in complexity. Sexual organisms would be needed at the beginning of this genetic disorder because they are in all respects more complicated than asexual organisms. This means that there would be two original SUPERcells required to start all of life. The world and everything in it would be in disorder and chaos, unless these SUPERcells were vastly intelligent and planned everything into existence. If they had been vastly intelligent then they would have known exactly what traits to pass down to insure survival to certain offspring that inherited the majority of the original/desirable traits so that they, too, would be intelligent and would be able to pass down the desirable traits. These would be a SUPER/Favorable species that had the originals' potential and likeness. They would probably even be in their own image... Wait a minute. I've read this somewhere...
Edited by Arithus, : No reason given.
I only want the truth, whatever it leads to is fine by me...
™ Version 4.2