EvC Forum: Have evolutionists documented the formation of NEW genetic material? (Lost Thread)

Since the original has been lost to the great black hole of the forum

, this is the restart for the thread.

The op was as follows:

Wardog25 writes:

Could you provide me with any specific scientific procedures that have resulted in a gain of NEW genetic material for an organism? (not a changing of current material, nor a doubling of current material. New material. New genes, proteins, etc.)

What evolutionists claim is the mechanism for evolution is what I call microevolution. Everyone is free to call it whatever they like. But that's what I call it.

Bottom line is, it has to add NEW genetic material for the mechanism to work.

So thousands of laboratory tests = many changes in current genetic material, but nothing new. This supports creation: that animals can change within their "kind".

We are still waiting for the tests that show the introduction of new genetic material. So at this point, the evolutionary mechanism gives more support to creation than it does to the theory of evolution.

(and I appologize for my use of the word "species". I forget that I come from other forums where people freak out if you use anything Biblically referenced.)

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?

To this Admin had placed the following warning:

Admin writes:

PLEASE READ THIS FIRST

The first 15 messages of this thread are discussion between the originator and moderators. You can skip this discussion, but please read all of this message, then understand that in the opinion of the moderators the first order of business in this thread should be reaching common ground regarding the definition of new genetic material. Then skip to Message 16. --Admin

The thread went along, and then Wardog25 got back in again with this message:

Wardog25 writes:

Sorry that I have not contributed to this. Life is too busy.

I actually was under the impression that the title of the thread was going to be changed, but oh well.

By "material", I meant something larger than just a new pattern in the DNA. I even mean something larger than say, the ability for bacteria to digest nylon.

An organism gaining the ability to digest something new, or a bacteria gaining resistance to an antibiotic is not demonstrating that the organism is on its way to developing a new structure. And it certainly isn't demonstrating that the distant offspring of that organism could ever evolve into another organism.

Bottom line is, if humans evolved from something smaller than a one-celled organism, there HAD to be a time when the "genetic material" for an arm, or a nose, or heart tissue did not exist. It came into existence.

So where is the mechanism that makes these new things come about? How many generations of fruit flies do we have to watch to demonstrate this? They may grow a leg out of their head, but they never even gain a more functional leg, much less a "new structure" that is even better than a leg. If we can't find evidence of such things, how can we take that a step further and believe that a fruit fly could ever evolve into anything else?

So call it "new genetic material" or "evidence of major morphological changes". Either is fine with me.

Does that clear up what I'm looking for?

To which Percy replied with:

Percy writes:

Wardog25 writes:

So where is the mechanism that makes these new things come about?

The mechanism is descent with modification and natural selection.

If you're looking for a structure within the cell tucked amidst the mitochondria and ribosomes that directs evolution, no such structure exists. Evolution is undirected. It makes do with whatever already exists or is provided through mutation.

--Percy

PaulK replied with:

PaulK writes:

quote:
Bottom line is, if humans evolved from something smaller than a one-celled organism, there HAD to be a time when the "genetic material" for an arm, or a nose, or heart tissue did not exist. It came into existence.

And we know from the fossil record that that required a whole long (VERY long) sequence of smaller changes.

If you're going to ask for documented changes you are going to have to ask for changes that reasonably COULD be documented. Asking for full documentation of the evolution of even a primitive vertebrate from a single-celled organism is grossly unreasonable.

So, can you define what you want clearly enough that we can get it down to something reasonable ? Or are you just going to make demands that cannot possibly be met regardless of the truth of the matter so you can claim a "victory" ?

And Bluegenes replied with:

Bluegenes writes:

Wardog25 writes:

How many generations of fruit flies do we have to watch to demonstrate this?

To put things into perspective, a fruit fly generation is about 12 days, giving us about 30 generations per year or about 3000 per century, if anyone got around to observing them that long.

3000 generations is very little in evolutionary time. Our ancestors were Homo Sapiens 3000 generations ago.

You could witness the beginnings of the process of speciation in fast reproducing creatures like fruit flies, and that has been observed.

Then, Wardog25 got back in and made this post:

Wardog25 writes:

Scientists have been observing E coli for over 40,000 generations and have yet to find anything more than these small-scale changes mentioned above (resistance to antibiotic, etc)

If larger changes take much longer than 40,000 generations in every organism, the evolutionary time-line is in serious trouble.

Cavediver then responded:

Cavediver writes:

If larger changes take much longer than 40,000 generations in every organism, the evolutionary time-line is in serious trouble.

Really? You ask about growing new legs? When did our ancestors become tetrapods? Err, that would be nearly 400 million years ago? How many generations is that? And how many extra legs have evolved in all of the descendents of those first tetrapods? And those first tetrapods, did their legs just poof out of nothing, or were they actually just gradual changes to pre-existing structures? Oh yes, lobe-finned fish fins... what a surprise. So, evolution has apparently taken us, over the course of 400 million years, from four limbs to, err, four limbs. I must admit that large scale change of this magnitude is a real problem for evolution.

And that's all I could find from Google cache.

What follows is the reply I made to Wardog25's post (If I remember correctly)

Huntard writes:

I would like to point the following out:

Modern day extant species did not evolve for other modern day extant species. The bacteria you speak of would be very different genetically thousands, let alone millions, of years ago.

And that's all I really remember well enough to post about, I do remember Lucytehape coming in and bringing up some points to refute my claims, but I can't recall them well enough to reproduce them here.

That's kinda where we left off, so now, let's resume

I hunt for the truth

4 online now:	AZPaul3, dwise1, LamarkNewAge, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,749 Year: 4,006/9,624 Month: 877/974 Week: 204/286 Day: 11/109 Hour: 0/2