Understanding the ramifications of the potentialities of Disco’tute slogan-speak, we see the dangers of ignorant religious zealots with just enough of the wrong information to make themselves a total embarrassment: “scrambled DNA molecules”.Now for the special treatment that must be given to your claim that someone, unnamed, but alluded to as "some joker talking out his ass". . . .Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
Who could that be?
I know someone who said that "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome", namely, Ringtone. I don't know of anyone but you, Toddsterpatriot, who said that "mutations can never add new information".
Huh. Those two statements do not appear to be the same. Maybe they don't have the same meaning. I wonder what the possible difference in meaning could be.
Just kidding. As one who is versed in the pertinent potentialities of the genome, as one who knows that the term gene is used in two different ways (to denote a piece of DNA that codes for a protein or codes for a trait), and as one who has studied the models of gene duplication per evolutionary theory: I understand that previously nonexistent expressions (or traits) can arise in populations due to preexisting, albeit, latently embedded information.
Is this new information? Well, it's new information as expressively realized in any given population and is likely to be preserved if it's significantly adaptive.
Which brings us to the other half of my post in the above that someone disregarded . . . or did someone who talks out of his ass fail to grasp the ramifications?
There's that catch 22 again. It depends how one defines new information.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.
It’s just too funny.