Increases in Genetic Information

Chimps and humans are exactly what you are looking for. We share a common ancestor, and the differences between us and chimps is due to the mutations that have accumulated in each lineage since genetic flow stopped between the two lineages. We have the genomes of both chimps and humans (as well as other apes), so we know exactly where the mutations occurred in the genome. The differences seen between humans and chimps is exactly what you are looking for.

Then the potato appears to be more complex than humans. There are about 40,000 genes in the tuber genome:"Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is the world’s most important non-grain food crop and is central to global food security. It is clonally propagated, highly heterozygous, autotetraploid, and suffers acute inbreeding depression. Here we use a homozygous doubled-monoploid potato clone to sequence and assemble 86% of the 844-megabase genome. We predict 39,031 protein-coding genes and present evidence for at least two genome duplication events indicative of a palaeopolyploid origin."
Genome sequence and analysis of the tuber crop potato | Nature

You have the cart in front of the horse.Life can evolve from common ancestors even if there is limited genetic flow between lineages. That's the point being made. You are requiring evolution to do something it doesn't need to do. The real question is do they have children? The answer is no. There is no genetic flow between the two populations which allows for different mutations to accumulate in each population which, over time, results in divergence (i.e. macroevolution).Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Firstly, what can we conclude about your arguments related to genome size and gene counts as measures of complexity? They both fail miserably. We can find single celled organisms with hundreds of times more DNA than humans. We can find simple plants that have twice as many genes as we do. In other words, there is no correlation between complexity and size of the genome or number of genes.Secondly, there is still the chance that the earliest life had a very large genome.Finally, why can't "arms and legs, head, spleen, kidney and whatever else" come from mutations in already existing genes? There is your mechanism for macroevolution.

Whether or not they CAN have offspring doesn't matter one whit if they DON'T. What we are looking for is a mechanism by which different mutations will accumulate in each population, and to do that there can not be genetic flow between the two populations. Citing examples where there is no genetic flow meets that criteria. They are separate species because they are genetically isolated and are accumulating population specific mutations.

Macroevolution is separate microevolutionary events in separate populations. Micro produces macro if there is a lack of genetic flow between the two populations.For example, the differences seen between the chimp and human genomes are a series of microevolutionary events. Each mutation is a single event that was selected for or was not selected against (i.e. neutral drift). Over time, these microevolutionary events add up until there are major differences between the two populations.Since you already agree that humans and chimps are different species, would you consider evidence for common ancestry between humans and chimps as a falsification of your claims?

Find the differences between the humans and chimp genomes. Those are the mutations you are looking for. Natural selection is a process whereby information moves from the environment into the the gene pool of a population. Why does one mutation become more common than another? That information is due to environmental pressures. You compare them to a third species. If two of the species share the same base at a given position then that gives you information on the ancestral sequence. Relationships are determined using non-funcational DNA. Common ancestry and the function of a specific DNA sequence are two independent conclusions. For example, we can establish common ancestry between humans and apes by comparing endogenous retroviruses which are largely non-funcational. In fact, we don't even need to know what function an endogenous retrovirus may have in each genome in order to test whether or not humans and other ape species share a common ancestor. Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequencesThe logical reason is the mountains of evidence supporting universal common ancestry such as the ever present nested hierarchy. So you have had the following done?1. You and your parents' genomes sequenced.2. Align that sequence.3. Find the mutations that are specific to you.4. Tested the genes that these mutations occurred in and tested for changes in function.Have you done this? If not, I really don't see why we should accept your claims.

The change in gene expression was due to a mutation. That is new information.

The problem that you have is that we observe a nested hierarchy. This is the very pattern of shared and derived features that we would expect evolution to produce. You are essentially saying that a designer would make it look like evolution happened, even if it didn't. That doesn't make any sense. It is a like a defense attorney claiming that the jury should ignore all of the fingerprint and DNA evidence because God could have planted the evidence at the crime scene in such a way that it is indistinguishable from known natural mechanisms. By mutations we mean changes in the DNA sequence of your genome as compared to that of your parents. Mutations are random with respect to fitness, so they can be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental. The facts are that each of us are born with mutations, changes in our genomes that did not exist in our parents. This happens in every single generation. Your parents have mutations not found in your grandparents. Your grandparents have mutations not found in your great-grandparents. The genomes of living humans are a direct record of their ancestry.

So those tens of millions of mutations that separate humans and chimps are examples of where one or the other genome has been destroyed? So you are saying that none of the places where humans and chimps differ in their genome is beneficial to either species? You really need to explain this.Do you agree or disagree that the physical differences between humans and chimps is due to the differences in their genome?

Then please point to a difference that could not be produced by the known mechanisms of mutation. Even more, please evidence this design mechanism and cite examples of it in action. Please explain why this design process would produce a nested hierarchy, and why there are differences between genes that do not affect the amino acid sequence (i.e. synonymous mutations). sfs also makes a very good point related to the bias for CpG mutations which matches what we observe for real mutational processes.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I would really like to see those studies as they applied to the common ancestor where this mutation occurred. Or are you just making this up?What you need to explain is why all apes, including humans, have the SAME mutation that knocked out the vitamin c synthase pathway.

Deadly malaria is still deadly malaria.

Those differences are mutations that have occurred in one lineage or the other, and they are responsible for the physical differences between humans and chimps. That is false. We determine common ancestry by the PATTERN of similarities and differences. That pattern is a nested hierarchy. Not an assumption. It is a conclusion drawn from constructing phylogenies. Chimps and humans have a much more recent common ancestor than humans and gorillas, and the even more distantly related orangutan. These are all conclusions drawn from real life data using real genetic techniques, not assumptions. Why doesn't it aid in the debate? Cars and airplaines made by Saab do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. There is absolutely no reason why any designer would be forced to limit designs to a nested hierarchy. However, that is the only pattern of shared and derived features that evolution can produce.What do we see with life? Life falls into a nested hierarchy just as we would expect from the process of evolution and not intelligent design. No one is claiming that poems evolve from one another through mutation and selection. We are talking about DNA which is not a poem. Evidence please. Of course not. This is because you define any change in DNA sequence as a loss in information. You have really defined yourself out of the debate. Using your definition of an "increase in information", evolution does not need to increase information as you define it in order to produce the biodiversity we see around us. The mutations that separate species are all that is needed.

That is exactly what we have with the differences found between the human and chimp genome.Perhaps you can tell us why these differences could not be produced by the observed processes of evolution?