Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?

quote:

---

Until you can produce evidence of mutations that lead to changes above the species level, you are relying on faith to hold that position.

---

Well, evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming -- the evidence exists in many different fields of biology, and is observed by many different scientists using a variety of different observational and experimental methodologies. The evidence is so overwhelming that we can safely say that evolution is an established fact.Now, the only process that we know of that produces heritable variation is genetic mutations. We do observe genetic mutations, so they exist, and we have no other mechanism for inheretance, and so we can safely say that the evidence does suggest, quite strongly, that mutations (with natural selection) lead to changes above the species level.No faith required.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I grasp all of these concepts. When I said "produce" I meant via mutations over "howevermany" years, not reproductively. It's fairly obvious that a gerbil won't give birth to a non-gerbil....but thanks for the confidence in my rationality.I also realize that speciation is the source of new species. However, you're being dishonest if you suggest that mutations aren't the means of acheiving the change required. Regardless...I asked for evidence of changes ABOVE the species level, not at the species level.The point is there is no observable evidence that suggests that speciation will ever lead to a new Order, for instance. And unless the first simple organisms were primates...this would eventually be required.

You admitted that faith was required in your answer."we can safely say that the evidence does suggest, quite strongly"This may be faith based on reason, but it is still faith when absent empirical proof. I understand your assumptions. Because you are a naturalist and we have no other natural mechanism that produces heritable variation, and you assume heritable variation must be the means of getting to our current forms of life, then obviously it happened. No matter how scientific you make it sound...it's still an assumption based on logic...not fact.

This would make an interesting PNT, if you're interested I'll do the hard work. You bolded suggest, may I bold a different word: You seem to be suggesting that if the evidence infers a conclusion, that is faith. Your definition of faith is so broad it includes everything, including my conclusion that my computer is on a desk. If we take everything on faith, what use is the word.If you want to discuss faith, reasonable doubt, and science, gimme a shout and I'll write something up.

Almost. I'm suggesting that if the evidence infers a conclusion that isn't verifiable, you rely on faith. Your example of taking it on faith that your computer is on your desk is apples to oranges. You can easily prove that your computer is on your desk by reaching out and touching it. However, it's not possible to prove that changes ABOVE the level of species can occur. Evolutionists would be the first to admit this since they take such great time to occur.And I'm actually not even suggesting that your perspective is illogical. If only natural means exist, then what you suggest must be fact. However, if supernatural means exist then there are another set of assumptions that are equally as logical.The question, then, is....which is more logical to assume supernaturalism or naturalism. Since every effect must have a cause...I would say supernaturalism.If you want to work up a topic...go ahead. I'll drop in as I have time available.This message has been edited by Garrett, 02-17-2006 10:27 AM

I think we're hitting on the main problem most "common" americans have with the theory of evolution. Looking at past polls (I don't have the exact numbers right now), most americans are still skeptical.I know that most of the scientific community views these people as dumb rednecks or whathaveyou, but the fact is the majority of them realize that the overarching concept of change ABOVE the level of species is not verifiable.Until evolutionists are willing to admit that they can't prove these level of changes and that they reach the conclusions based on logical assumptions, the community as a whole will be skeptical of their intentions. Most evolutionists, including many in this thread, assert that evolution is a fact hoping the average person doesn't know otherwise, or not realizing themselves that micro doesn't prove macro.

That seems to be a pretty sweeping assumption. Are you sure most of them don't realise that they aren't related to no monkey?What does macro even mean 'above' the level of speciation? How would you show it? How novel would a feature need to be before we decide to that itis sufficient to demarcate change 'above' the level of species.I assume that by 'above' the level of species you mean that speciation is not sufficient.TTFN,WK

What you did verify is your smug attitude towards anyone with different views. Gotta love that evolutionary mindset.

Garrett, you moved the thread off-topic, introducing the notion of "common folks" and "dumb rednecks."Now move it back by addressing the topic rather than your appraisal of your opponent's mindset.

---

Trust me.

That sentence still has no meaning to me. Mutations happen at the genetic level, not at or under or above the "species" level. Speciation is not the source of new orders, or classes, or other such taxa. The source of new orders, classes, or other such taxa is biologists determining that it would be more convinient to group some organisms in a new order, class, or other such taxa.

More people who just knew they weren't 'related to no monkey' (insulting US southern slur the creation of Wounded King, not I):Blaise Pascal
Issac Newton
Michael Faraday
James Joule
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
Joseph Lister
George Washington Carver

I didn't ask for evidence of MUTATIONS above the species level...but evidence for CHANGES above the species level. The only evidence would be intermediate forms. The few debateable examples don't seem to be numerous enough. In other words, how do you account for the seeming stasis in the fossil record?

To answer the problem of transistional forms with the response that groupings are determined by scientists and are therefore of no consequence, is a red herring. Regardless of the classification system used, the biological features of an organism would change, going through transitional periods, between different classifications. No evidence exists for the vast majority of these transitions....rather they are accepted a priori based on a preconceived worldview dedicated to uniformitarianism and naturalism.

Blaise Pascal 1623-1662
Issac Newton 1643-1727
Michael Faraday 1791 - 1867
James Joule 1818-1889
Gregor Mendel 1822-1884
Louis Pasteur 1822-1895
Joseph Lister 1827-1912
George Washington Carver 1864-1943First, you have provided no evidence that any of them would not accept the TOE had they known about it.Second, Origins was not published until 1859, so the evidence in support of the TOE was just beginning to be found during their lifetimes.Third, modern genetic support for the TOE wasn't available until around 1959.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Garrett, take a break.Despite your protests, you are responsible for your own off-topic messages, not WK--and you are responsible for ignoring fair warning.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-17-2006 11:32 AM

---

Trust me.