Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.
What do you mean by, "Mutations entail a loss of information"?
I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart. Clarification: I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance. That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain. A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist. Today, I'll get into what I think.
So let's get back to it.
Earlier, I asked the following:
Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?
(You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)
You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity and precision, the
increased complexity to which I allude in the above is
the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time. I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.
Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.
On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.
Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?
Again, that's the theory.
Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be
no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is
yes, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.
There's that catch 22 again.
In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information
de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.
I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you?
Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .
Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.
On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?
. I still don't think you understand actual infinity nor potential infinity. Can you answer which one the atheists here and their atheist scientists practice, but are in denial? Second, how do I use actual infinity?
