Have evolutionists documented the formation of NEW genetic material?

This is a quote of mine from another thread, but it was off topic, so I'm hoping to start a new discussion.So can anyone provide any documented lab results, procedures, tests, etc. that have shown an organism gaining genetic material?Clarification: By new genetic material, I mean exactly that. New. A fruit fly developing a leg that comes out of its head does not count as new. The genetic material for a leg already existed, so there is nothing "new" there, it's just moved. Same thing with doubling of genetic material. That only doubles what we already have, it does not produce anything "new". For the evolutionary mechanism to work, there HAS to be new genetic material formed. So where is the evidence?Edited by wardog25, : Clarification

done. clarification added.

Sorry for the slow response. Life is busy.I was thinking a bit more zoomed out I suppose. But I think you answered my question, because that demonstrates the types of answers I will get. Yes, a mutation constitutes a slightly "new" pattern, but I wouldn't call it an addition to the genome that would eventually allow for the formation of new tissues, organs, and other structures.Evolutionists will differ of course, saying that if a mutation in the pattern can happen, we can assume that if the perfect order of perfect mutations happened, we'd eventually get something larger that was positive. And we'll be back to what usually happens in these circular discussions, which is drawing different conclusions from the same evidence because of starting with different assumptions.So since I'm so busy right now, maybe I'll save myself the trouble. That is, unless you can think of a way to define the question in a manner that gets at the heart of the issue. But right now I'm too busy to spend the time on it.-Thanks

Ok, we can go with that.The argument is fairly simple from that perspective. Neither artificial selection, nor natural selection (the two observable evolutionary mechanisms) have been demonstrated to produce new tissues, organs, or other body structures.Assuming that tiny variations from mutations can result in a completely new protein, new kind of cell, or new tissue, is exactly that: an assumption. It has not been scientifically demonstrated and is at best a guess.

I guess I'm not sure how specific of an explanation you are asking for.A new structure would be something that is not a current structure that was moved. It is not a current structure that is duplicated. It is not a structure that wasn't exhibited because the gene was not activated (but the gene for it was always there). A new structure is a structure that is completely brand new. Something that did not exist before.

I'm not sure how I can give an example of something I don't think exists. That's why I gave examples of what it isn't - so that people can give what they think counts as "new", then we can discuss why it is or it isn't.Does this make sense? How can I give an example of something that I don't think happens?

I've excluded duplication alone. Not duplication which involves mutation. That was one of the options that someone could bring up and discuss.Really, the only thing I'm confused about is why I need to be so specific. (Please understand, I'm not criticizing, I'm just used to other boards where the topics are a little more open)Because, honestly, if I need to take the time to research several different examples of what I'm asking for, I might as well not even ask the question. I assumed people would bring those examples up in the thread and we would discuss them.