Have evolutionists documented the formation of NEW genetic material?

Since the first question that will be asked is "what do you think new genetic material is or would look like?" it would help get the thread rolling properly if you supplied that definition to start with.It should be promotable when you've done that. Edit it into the opening post (OP) and reply to this message.

You still have not supplied a definition of what is "new". You give some clues as to what is not "new" but even that isn't explained.May I try to help (you can ignore it if I'm way off your meaning):Our "genetic material" consists of our DNA. DNA consists of strings of 4 different "bases". The pattern of these bases is what determines the proteins that will be produced (indirectly) from our DNA.Is this what you mean by "genetic material"?If our "genetic material" is increased by the doubling (or more) of some part of the pattern then the exact same pattern is there (just more copies) so that is not an increase in "genetic material".Thus to make new "genetic material" there has to be a new pattern.Is that a good definition of what you mean by "new genetic material"??

I thought we had gotten to the heart of the issue.Do you want me to leave this open for you or not? You have, it seems, agreed that there can be "new genetic material" but you topic has now changed.Your issue is whether or not this can produce various forms of morphological change. Right?If you do want to get this topic rolling could you explain what you think can be formed ("small" changes?) and can not be formed "new tissues"? It would then be useful for you to give your reasoning and evidence as to why the later can not be formed through the addition of "new genetic material" of the kind discussed.The title could then be changed to something like:
"Impossibility of Major Morphological Changes". Right?

Ok. Your issue is no totally different from the opening post. Could you rewrite and re-title that OP or just start another one.Since there are cases of "new structures" perhaps you could also be more precise as to what you count as new and what you don't count.

Ok, then rewrite the OP doing the best you can. You might give an example of what would not and what would constitute a "new" structure in more concrete terms.I know this is hard but if you can't spell out what you are talking about you will get into a mess in the first few hours of the thread since several individuals will ask you to define your terms so you might as well get it over with.For example, your first crack at it turned out to be a non starter. Right?

You suggest that a certain thing doesn't occur. You need to describe what that is.For example, an evolutionist will tell you that new structures never arise without an antecedent to build from. They will say this never happens. But they can still describe what one would look like.E.g., The fossil record will not contain an organism with a body structure that is utterly unrelated to all parts of all previous organisms. An example would be, a chewing structure that has supporting bony structure that consists of bones that are not in any way related to any bones of all related species. If all relatives had 300 bones and this guy had 304 bones with the additional 4 showing no connection to any of the earlier 300 it would be an example that evolution says doesn't happen. That is, the 4 bones are not duplicates with modifications of any of the previous 300 bones the organism would be a counter example.There have been no such structures found to-date. Examples that do NOT meet this criteria are the wings of birds, bats, your arms and the fin structure of tictalic are all very different structures but all have clear relationships to one another.There I have described something that I am sure doesn't happen. I think it is described clearly enough to make it possible to know for sure if you have found a counter example.In other words: you do have to know what you are talking about before you make statements about it.