Demanding evolutionists to give proof of evolution in forms of examples of new information in the genome due to mutations I have been given two papers which will be addressed here (from my inquiries to Royal Truman)
The first paper: Laterally transferred elements and high pressure adaptation in Photobacterium profundum strainshttp://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/6/122Answer:
This paper does not indicate that new information was created in the genome due to mutations
Conceptual background. Consider these points first:
1) There are many cases were already existing genes can be brought into a different genome, by careful design. For example, a mother lacks a Y chromosome but this can be provided by her husband, leading to a baby boy with genetic material the parent (mother) did not have.
2) The alleles from the mother and father are often not identical. This allows latent features already present in their combined genes to be revealed (curly hair, different height…). On parent might be dark skinned, the other light, but the baby neither (a nice tanned color!)
These are not examples of mutations having created new information! The information was already there, even if not yet revealed.
3) Suppose someone claimed to be able to become wealthier without having to work. He then proceeds to transfer some coins from one pocket into another one. Is he now richer, because the second pocket has more coins? No.
Please keep these points in mind as we evaluate this paper.
It is very advantageous for small organisms with short generation times, like bacteria, to streamline their genomes. And indeed, it is very common when bacteria replicate to lose genes. If these are not needed in the immediate future, that lineage can use available energy from nutrients more effectively and reproduce faster then the heavy-weight ones.
Now, the genes no longer available could become necessary later, so they are kept in reserve, distributed among other hosts, whether as phages (virus) or plasmids or transposons. The necessary genes are available on these hosts or the ‘vector’ directly to construct the necessary molecular machinery to then transfer these genes to other organisms. The processes are carefully Designed to permit this to occur. For example, in bacterial conjugation the host first makes sure the intended partner does not already have the plasmid and only if the answer is ‘no’ will a copy of the plasmid be transferred. Dozens of genes are used in this gene-transfer process. It is obviously Designed and not the process of accident.
Plasmids and other genetic elements can be tossed out easily by the recipient afterward, if not needed. The overall tendency is for bacteria to lose any genes not needed at the moment, which is a major problem for evolutionists, since superfluous genetic material is needed if brand new genes are to evolve.
In a nutshell, the information being made available the the bacteria in this paper was already available, whether on phage, transposons or plasmids, and was not created by random mutations. Furthermore, none of these three genetic elements are living. The genes were made available to them from somewhere else. They can pick up genes from living organisms. It is precisely the origin of these novel genes which has not be explained naturalistically.
Note in this paper how many genes are expressed together at higher or lower levels as temperature and pressure changes. These genes are involved at the same time for various cellular processes and must work joint as an ensemble. The genes brought in have already been Designed to respond to regulatory signals used by those organisms.
If the argument is that mutations fine-tuned the genes to perform better under those special conditions there is no evidence that the initial genes variants were not already suitable for the intended purposes, or at close to it. It is entirely reasonable, and expected, that a few minor mutations could modify some genes, in a microevolutionary sense. This is not problematic. Among huge bacterial populations these alternatives may already be present, to permit rapid response to a new challenge, and natural selection just adjusts their relative proportion. The information here is latent, already built in.
As an analogy: one could design a firearm to shoot a single bullet or as a shotgun, with many pellets. The shotgun design must be well engineered to fulfill its intended function. The information that went into its’ construction already accommodates a series of targets a few millimeters apart. A huge population of bacteria can accommodate variants with enough flexibility at enzymatic active sites to process different sugars, or handle similar toxic substances. Nothing truly new is being created, the original tools are simply being used within the range of options built in.
The second paper: Genome Comparison of a Nonpathogenic Myxoma Virus Field Strain with Its Ancestor, the Virulent Lausanne Strainhttp://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/83/5/2397Answer: This paper demonstrates precisely the opposite of what the evolutionist wishes to show!
The bottom line is that in the period between 1952 and 1995 the strain of the virus MV Lausanne mutated to strain ‘6918’ and in the process totally wiped out four of the 159 genes (= ORF or ‘Open Reading Frames’). This is indeed the average, net effect of what mutations do, although slowed down by natural selection: they destroy function, or information.
The evolutionist needs to show that mutations can create new genes, and not destroy them! To illustrate: earthquakes can destroy houses. But this does not prove earthquakes can create them!
Image a new population somewhere in which everyone has developed four flaws (everyone is missing a finger, a toe, and ear and one eye). Would this be offered as proof that evolution is creating new, complex features? Of course not.
Maybe whoever sent this paper (and shot him/herself in the paw in process) had the notion that adjusting to an environmental change is proof of evolutionary theory. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The potential to adjust to circumstances has already been built into us. For example, our body temperature remains at 37 °C in spite of the surrounding temperature. It is very common to lose some alleles (gene variants) to permit specialization to new circumstances, leading to creatures of various sizes and characteristics. The species which result have now lost the ability to adjust to additional circumstances: the necessary genes their forefathers had have been lost. Just like with the ‘6918’ virus: without those four destroyed genes (and the others which will get degraded with yet more mutations) the virus has lost the information necessary to adjust to a wide range of circumstances.
Finally, it is meaningless in principle to try to use virus as evidence for evolution; they are not independent, free living organisms at all. Real organisms have the genes necessary to decode the genetic information which is carried on their genes; and all the genes needed to replicate on their own; etc. Mutations can degrade or destroy all these genes on real organisms, relentlessly over time. Virus use the processing machinery of the hosts and don’t possess all these genes themselves, which is why they can mutate so fast: the genes needed to be truly alive are missing entirely and thus can’t be destroyed by mutations. So the question whether mutations on average create new information in living organisms must be answered using real organisms.