Increases in Genetic Information

NoNukes, maybe I should just ignore you. You have proven to be nothing more than a troll. You don't like to listen to any of my completely reasonable arguments. I hope you learn to have a more reasonable mind.

NoNukes at this point I don't care what anybody else thinks that looks at it and reasons with you because they are probably just like you. Belligerent, stubborn and closed minded. There is no convincing people like you. I really only care what God thinks and what open minded, honest people think. God knows I tried to reason with you, making good points. He knows I tried my best to help you see a reasonable argument which I believe is the truth. Open minded, Honest people will see my reason. Hopefully there are some of those people on here.

care to back that up? It depends on which definition of speciation you go by, whether you go by the arbitrary blurry one that doesn't even mean anything, or the true definition of species which has been defined but not stuck to by those that classify many species.Edited by jbozz21, : No reason given.

Thank you Genomicus for your comment, I can agree that this redundancy in the yeast genome benefits the yeast and that without it, it doesn't function as well. Although I would be careful not to assume that this redundancy in genes is actually a genetic mutation. Is there any solid research to support this?

Percy, humans have always have had the ability to digest lactose. I think what your refering to is the adult human's ability to. We are born with it and then loose it after we stop breast feeding. We stopped loosing the ability as adults when we started drinking other animals milks, mainly cows. So that is not new information just old genes that don't get turned off.

Thank you for admitting that. Just goes to show that evolution as a process of change from one organism to another is completely theoretical and never been observed. So it is still a completely viable theory like it always has been that evolution does not go as far as to change organisms into completely different organisms (such as fish into frog) and these organisms had to come about by a completely different means (say intelligent Creation).In this case the mutation destroyed the genes ability to turn off the lactase producing gene. That is all that mutations do, is they destroy. They are not a process of creation. Sometimes those genes that they destroy happen to aid the organism in surviving or digesting milk sugar but over all they do not make the organism more fit. Mutations do not create anything.Especially considering certain experiments involving bacteria and fruit flies that showed no evidence of mutations that proceeded to evolve the organism.No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations | The Institute for Creation Research
Bacteria 'evolving in the lab'? (Lenski, citrate-digesting E. coli) - creation.comDon't think that I am saying that mutations are not ever beneficial, under certain extenuating circumstances they can benefit an organism but it does not make the organism more fit. Most times it will make them less fit other than that it won't affect the organism. It the case of bacteria, it will keep them from not being killed by antibiotics but they cannot reproduce or metabolize as well as non mutated bacteria.
Occasionally it will be a neutral mutation, human adults that digest Lactose are not more fit than those that cannot. It just means that you can drink milk as an adult. Something that is un-necessary for people and even argued by experts as not even healthy for adults.

We creationists cheer you. Now if I could just get you to admit how this is obviously not evidence for evolution. That mutation would not create anything. It only switched back on a gene that already existed since creation. Besides, for an animal like a dog that almost never gets vitamin c, a mutation like that would kill it. Which would mean natural selection would weed out that destroyed gene and mutations would never have the ability to switch it back. For any other gene I doubt that would happen anyway. I could see this causing lots of problems for the organism. DRAGON222 : Pragmatic Play - Demo Slot Pragmatic Terpercaya 2022 - DRAGON222Actually not at all, In many places like the native Americans, Asians, Thais, Bantu, and Aborigines Lactose tolerance is rare even though it exists. It did not spread. It is probably just an example of genetic drift. Could also be epi-genetics. For example Lactose tolerance stops when you stop breast feeding. But if you immediately put the child on cows milk instead of breast feeding then his whole life he drinks milk and eats dairy products then it just never gets turned off because it is always a necessity. So for white people we like to drink a lot of cows milk but Asians, Native Americans, Thais, Bantu and Aborigines. They don't drink animal milks often. There is no advantage to drinking cows milk to not drinking cows milk. Many people live long healthy lives without drinking milk as an adult. Therefore they get the opportunity to pass on those genes therefore there is no natural selection. Therefore it is not evolution and not a genetic mutation that increases fitness.

I can agree that under these circumstances when infected with malaria yes, the people can live longer and therefore are more fit but at the same time when they are not infected they are less fit. If they moved away to a place where the threat of Malaria was not so rampant they would be less fit because they would have Anemia. The mutation made the blood cells less susceptible to the Malaria virus but, at the same time made the blood cells less able to pick up oxygen. That is not something that I would call evolutionary. That is step backwards that keeps the organism from dying but keeps it alive. This does not support the molecules to man hypothesis.The organism has to be completely more fit or else it is going to keep getting worse and worse. If all the HbA people died off and only HbC lived when Malaria disappeared then the people would be alive but with slower metabolisms, slower brains, not progressive evolution but regressive.
And that is what I meant when I said that mutations can only destroy. This mutation partly destroyed or weakened the blood cells ability to do it's job, which is absorb and transfer oxygen. It did not create anything. It changed the already existing protein and made it less able to do it's job. You need a mutation that improves a function not weakens it.

These tens of millions of differences in human/chimp genomes is not due to mutation but to design.

mild anemia is still anemia. Why don't you look up the symptoms of anemia so as not to make yourself look stupid. Anemia Symptoms: Signs of A Low Red Blood Cell CountThe brain is reliant on oxygen to think. If you have less oxygen in the blood. The brain does not work as well.

This is not helping your assertion that man evolved from a lesser species. That is not an improvement.
Plus a vitamin C producing gene DESTROYING mutation is not beneficial mutation that is selected for against those that don't have the mutation. If anything those without the vitamin c mutation are more fit than those without it. For many people you cannot get too much vitamin c and if you do you just pee it out. But in times of famine or plague high amounts of vitamin c would boost your immune system and make you more fit to overcome the infection.
If anything this only helps the idea that man was created and not evolved, because any organism not being able to produce vitamin c we would either be selected out or randomly mixed with others that can produce vitamin c. Those that can produce vitamin c would not be selected out of the population because they are not less fit. That goes against the theory of evolution.