The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

Point to or name one mutation that has increased the information in its genetic DNA code.

Below is Dawkins response to this question...

That was taken from a dishonest video and is out of context. Do you have anything from a reliable source?

 

[He has Risen!]

That was taken from a dishonest video and is out of context. Do you have anything from a reliable source?

Why dishonest?...Dawkins is the one speaking and being interviewed. Just because you or Dawkins do not like it, do not call it dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why dishonest?...Dawkins is the one speaking and being interviewed. Just because you or Dawkins do not like it, do not call it dishonest.

The interviewers. They lied to Dawkins when they told them who they were. They dishonestly edited the video. If you listen carefully you will see that the question he answered was not the one that they asked. That indicates post interview editing.

Video to follow.

That did not take long:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Point to or name one mutation that has increased the information in its genetic DNA code.

Below is Dawkins poor response to this question...

One more point, the question asked has an easy answer. Gene duplication, a well understood mutation creates "new information". Technically the gene mutation itself is not "new information but once that occurs, and it does, one of the copies is free to mutate. By definition those mutations are "new information".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why dishonest?...Dawkins is the one speaking and being interviewed. Just because you or Dawkins do not like it, do not call it dishonest.

Did you not watch the video and why one cannot trust interviews? Besides in my last post I gave you an example of "new information". There are quite a few observed traits in species that can be traced to gene duplication.

 

[He has Risen!]

The interviewers. They lied to Dawkins when they told them who they were. They dishonestly edited the video. If you listen carefully you will see that the question he answered was not the one that they asked. That indicates post interview editing.

It is very apparent that any one who has watched the movie with Ben Stein "No Intelligence allowed" and the you tube video I referenced with Dawkins are not part of the same movie or interview. Subduction Zone need only to watch the video he claims is dishonest and compare it with the Movie with Ben Stein. By the way, I personally enjoyed watching the movie as well as Dawkins interviews.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is very apparent that any one who has watched the movie with Ben Stein "No Intelligence allowed" and the you tube video I referenced with Dawkins are not part of the same movie or interview. Subduction Zone need only to watch the video he claims is dishonest and compare it with the Movie with Ben Stein. By the way, I personally enjoyed watching the movie as well as Dawkins interviews.

Yes, those are not the same two sources. The fact remains that creationists activists have a record of dishonesty and also the question had a very easy answer.

 

[He has Risen!]

One more point, the question asked has an easy answer. Gene duplication, a well understood mutation creates "new information". Technically the gene mutation itself is not "new information but once that occurs, and it does, one of the copies is free to mutate. By definition those mutations are "new information".

You have me stumped...because of your belief. We have 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent by which we receive certain traits. If our DNA is as free to mutate as you believe then why are we so much like our parents?

 

[He has Risen!]

Yes, those are not the same two sources. The fact remains that creationists activists have a record of dishonesty and also the question had a very easy answer.

Please stop...because that is like the pot calling the kettle black. Don't go there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have me stumped...because of your belief. We have 46 chromosomes, 23 from each parent by which we receive certain traits. If our DNA is as free to mutate as you believe then why are we so much like our parents?

I can understand your confusion. What you need to remember is that evolution occurs in populations not in individuals. The mutations that you have in your genome, on the order of one hundred, will make very little difference in how you look. But though you only have one hundred mutations, perhaps one of which would in in coding DNA, it is no wonder that you do not notice it. But in a population of millions there will be countless positive mutations that will add up as time goes on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please stop...because that is like the pot calling the kettle black. Don't go there.

Do you seriously think so? It is not hard at all to come across lies in creationist sources. I doubt if the reverse is true at all.

 

[He has Risen!]

Gene duplication mistakes, as in the article below, is not new information but rearranged information that is fatal to an organism.

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gene duplication mistakes, as in the article below, is not new information but rearranged information that is fatal to an organism.

Gene duplication - Wikipedia

Not true at all. That article never claims that or even implies that quite the contrary it tells you that:

"Gene duplication (or chromosomal duplication or gene amplification) is a major mechanism through which new genetic material is generated during molecular evolution. It can be defined as any duplication of a region of DNA that contains a gene. "

Until this was observed and understood one of the problems for evolution was "How do key genes mutate without killing the host?" Gene duplication answered that problem. One of the gene continues to do the work of the old one and the second is free to mutate and add new traits.

Thanks for linking the article that I was about to link for you. Now you know how "new information" can be added to the genome, and this is only one way.

By the way you could have saved yourself this embarrassment if you had read some of the comments on the video that you linked. I saw that one poster brought up the exact same claim that I did:

"it is not the slightest bit controversial. one example would be gene duplication followed by mutation of the copy. that's why we see in three colours- an opsin gene was duplicated and a precisely identified point mutation resulted in a different wavelength of light being sensed. this is common to all old world primates and absent in all new world primates. evolution has a beautiful explanation for this. what's yours?"

 

[He has Risen!]

I can understand your confusion. What you need to remember is that evolution occurs in populations not in individuals. The mutations that you have in your genome, on the order of one hundred, will make very little difference in how you look. But though you only have one hundred mutations, perhaps one of which would in in coding DNA, it is no wonder that you do not notice it. But in a population of millions there will be countless positive mutations that will add up as time goes on.

That is evolutionary wishful thinking, and there is an epidemic of such thinking. Our DNA is a blueprint for many systems in our body. These systems have many different parts working together for the viability of our bodies. Mutations work against the good of our bodies like rust in a piping system. Cancer is a mutation that many of us share but do not wish to have. I am amazed at the redefinition of scientific understanding into a forced evolutionary mold.

 

[He has Risen!]

Not true at all. That article never claims that or even implies that quite the contrary it tells you that:

"Gene duplication (or chromosomal duplication or gene amplification) is a major mechanism through which new genetic material is generated during molecular evolution. It can be defined as any duplication of a region of DNA that contains a gene. "

Until this was observed and understood one of the problems for evolution was "How do key genes mutate without killing the host?" Gene duplication answered that problem. One of the gene continues to do the work of the old one and the second is free to mutate and add new traits.

Thanks for linking the article that I was about to link for you. Now you know how "new information" can be added to the genome, and this is only one way.

By the way you could have saved yourself this embarrassment if you had read some of the comments on the video that you linked. I saw that one poster brought up the exact same claim that I did:

"it is not the slightest bit controversial. one example would be gene duplication followed by mutation of the copy. that's why we see in three colours- an opsin gene was duplicated and a precisely identified point mutation resulted in a different wavelength of light being sensed. this is common to all old world primates and absent in all new world primates. evolution has a beautiful explanation for this. what's yours?"

Then why does the article use such words as detrimental?
below is an excerpt...
Aneuploidy often alters gene dosage in ways that are detrimental to the organism; therefore, it is unlikely to spread through populations.

also,
Whole genome duplications are thought to be less detrimental than aneuploidy as the relative dosage of individual genes should be the same.

Also, I wish the article would define for us Novel Functions,
as in the excerpt below,
Many retrogenes display changes in gene regulation in comparison to their parental gene sequences, which sometimes results in novel functions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is evolutionary wishful thinking, and there is an epidemic of such thinking. Our DNA is a blueprint for many systems in our body. These systems have many different parts working together for the viability of our bodies. Mutations work against the good of our bodies like rust in a piping system. Cancer is a mutation that many of us share but do not wish to have. I am amazed at the redefinition of scientific understanding into a forced evolutionary mold.

No, it is not "wishful thinking". It has been observed time and again. The mutations in specific genes can be traced. Here is just one technical article on how gene duplication is a major evolutionary tool:

Restriction and Recruitment—Gene Duplication and the Origin and Evolution of Snake Venom Toxins

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why does the article use such words as detrimental?
below is an excerpt...
Aneuploidy often alters gene dosage in ways that are detrimental to the organism; therefore, it is unlikely to spread through populations.

also,
Whole genome duplications are thought to be less detrimental than aneuploidy as the relative dosage of individual genes should be the same.

Because some mutations are detrimental. Some does not mean all. Do you know what the usual result is to a detrimental mutation? The organism has a greatly decreased chance of reproduction so the mutation disappears from the genome. Good mutations are preserved and selected for. Bad mutations take care of themselves.

 

[He has Risen!]

You might be surprised again by the articles and resources that I am using because they are in favor of evolution. The term genetic drift is a good term, just as long hair dogs survive better in cold climates. I have learned that there is an enzyme in horses that will kick in when the weather gets colder and it will cause them to grow longer hair. The article I am referencing below may be under that same fluctuation of enzymes that kick in at certain times as well as turn off at other times, and that sounds like design rather than random evolution.

Inventing an arsenal: adaptive evolution and neofunctionalization of snake venom phospholipase A 2 genes

Part of the article reads...
Conclusion
These data show that increases in genomic complexity (through gene duplications) can lead to phenotypic complexity (venom composition) and that positive Darwinian selection is a common evolutionary force in snake venoms. Finally, regions identified under selection on the surface of phospholipase A2 enzymes are potential candidate sites for structure based antivenin design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You might be surprised again by the articles and resources that I am using because they are in favor of evolution. The term genetic drift is a good term, just as long hair dogs survive better in cold climates. I have learned that there is an enzyme in horses that will kick in when the weather gets colder and it will cause them to grow longer hair. The article I am referencing below may be under that same fluctuation of enzymes that kick in at certain times as well as turn off at other times, and that sounds like design rather than random evolution.

Inventing an arsenal: adaptive evolution and neofunctionalization of snake venom phospholipase A 2 genes

How so? There is no scientific evidence for design, the articles that you have been supplying only mention the scientific evidence for evolution. Why believe in a concept without proper evidence?

 

[He has Risen!]

How so? There is no scientific evidence for design, the articles that you have been supplying only mention the scientific evidence for evolution. Why believe in a concept without proper evidence?

But that is what you are doing in regards to evolution. The evidence is there that shows much more design than a computer.