To a certain extent, I was jerking your chain on your agenda issues on your phrase; mutations do not lead to new genes. Your agenda is the rejection of evolution on religious grounds not in science.
It’s good that you made some effort to understand the “context” but why do you call it “agenda”? I thought we agreed to have an argument based on reason not nonsense. I don’t make argument about the ToE based on religious ground; the Islamic view is a reference for me not for you, the argument can only be supported by references that you acknowledge, that is why I only provide the scientific references from mainstream (pro-evolution) sources.
But, yes, absolutely, I reject evolution and I have my reasons and I embrace Islam and I have my reasons. I have my reasons for my view and have the right to defend it; the same is true for you. This is what this forum is about. This is why you and I are here. So, please let’s try to keep a rational argument and leave the nonsensical accusations aside.
The problem with Your use of terms is your simplistic statement mutations do not lead to new genes. is a terribly misleading, generalization,
I was quoting you word for word from your post #7943! Not because you’re a credible source but to specifically avoid nonsensical arguments. Obviously, it didn’t work but yes,
mutations do not lead to new genes. You know that don’t you?
and what you call 'new genes.'. Mutations do not lead to new genes in and of themselves, they lead to NEW INFORMATION. You are neglecting other factors of evolution of changes in the environment and time.
It is a faulty logic. You fail to understand that not all info is equal. Are group of letters arranged in a specific manner (a statement) to convey a very specific meaning, equal to random letters that don’t have any purpose? What happens to the “purposeful arrangement” of letters if you start to randomly change the letters? Simply the first thing that will happen is that the specific meaning will be gradually lost. The more letters you change the more damage to the meaning. What would happen to the “paragraph", if the important "statement" lost its meaning? Would the paragraph still perform its purpose? Even for the sake of argument if somehow the random letters managed to make a new meaningful statement, would it serve the purpose of the paragraph?
To put the randomness notion in perspective, if we assume a statement that serve a specific purpose/meaning includes 13 total letters that are different (ignore all other letters of the alphabet other than these 13 letters), If we consider this specific phrase as a code for a function, then the chance of this phrase to appear randomly among possible random arrangements of only 13 letters is 1 in 6.2 billion.
When I talk about a gene, I talk about a code that directs a very specific function (
purposeful information). When you talk about new information, you’re talking about random changes to this existing purposeful info. Significant or accumulation of random change would render the specific function of the purposeful information void before it gets any chance to randomly progress further towards a new function. The negative impact on fitness because of the loss of the original function would lead to the elimination of the new random info by selection. Even for the sake of argument if the accumulation of random info manages somehow to give rise to a new meaningful function, the loss of the original function would still negatively impact the organism and trigger elimination by selection.
You cannot equate info with very specific purpose to random info (junk).
Even if you argue that mutations that may randomly happen in non-coding DNA wouldn’t have a negative impact or alter protein functions, it’s still totally false. First, non-coding DNA is now known to contain many types of regulatory elements involved in controlling gene activity, to determine when/where genes are turned on and off to control the transcription of proteins in addition to other vital functions. Second, Scientists have determined that changes in regions of DNA that do not contain genes (non-coding DNA) can also lead to disease.
Can changes in noncoding DNA affect health and development?: MedlinePlus Genetics
In the short term mutations increase the genetic diversity of populations.
What kind of diversity a random change can give rise to? Do you mean the diversity of junk? Unless the change can translate to a genetic function such as encoding a three-dimensional complex protein structure that is capable of performing a specific purpose in the body, then such random changes are no more than a damage to original code or some purposeless junk that gets cleaned out by selection. Right?
The resulting genetic drift due to genetic diversity can lead to the evolution of new species over time
If you talk about species, first you should know what a species is. Sure, you think you know but you really don’t simply because scientists never stopped debating about it.
You think Ernst Mayr biological species concept based on the ability of interbreeding/reproductive isolation (the textbook standard till today) is a satisfactory delineation of species but it cannot be further from the truth, such delineation has led to more than a half century of controversy that didn’t end yet.
Dogs that greatly vary in size and phenotypic traits and CANNOT interbreed are still the exact same species. Yes, they have very different traits and cannot interbreed but that doesn’t render dog variants as distinct species.
It’s merely a pool of different traits rotating among the same species not new species. These traits may appear very different or new, but it didn’t come out of nowhere, such pool of various traits is simply the existing info that were originally encoded in the parents DNA and passed from the parents to the offspring. IOW, the observed variants didn’t emerge due to new info. It’s all existing from the parents DNA.
Before you claim an evolution of a new species, you first need to
DEFINE what a species is. I know you wouldn’t agree but you’re wrong.
Actually, mutations that cause disease and repair contribute to the survival of a species in the short term but are NOT directly related to the genetic mutations
What do you mean? Is there such thing as mutations that are not related to genetic mutations? Are you implying a new definition/category of mutations that is not genetic related? What are you talking about?
and the development of genetic diversity leads to the adaptation to changes in the environment and new environments over time that leads to evolution.
No, Adaptations are encoded in the genes (preprogrammed) and cause the specific change to appear when needed to addresses environmental change. It’s not random, such as the clear example of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), which is repeatedly seen and cannot be disputed. We know for a fact that microorganisms will always and very quickly develop the ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them. Such resistance is not a matter of random chance that may or may not take effect. It will happen every single time. Nothing about the adaptation process is random.
How Antibiotic Resistance Happens | CDC
The famous Lenski’s “Escherichia Coli” experiment is another clear example that provides evidence for the
previously encoded adaptation. The experiment shows an adaptation event mediated by gene regulation that activated an
existing but previously silent citrate transporter through the precise placement beyond an aerobically expressed promoter to allow for the expression of the existing silent citrate transporter.
It was not new info but rather an existing inactive info that was activated as an adaptive response to the specific variables within the environment. The ability to utilize citrate is a new adaptive trait and it didn’t give rise to new species.
Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population | Nature
As I always say, the problem is never the data but rather the subjective interpretations of the data that is greatly influenced by presuppositions (bias). Unless you get rid of the colored glasses, you can never see the true colors.
Bad terminology also in your statement the mutations are rare. Again you misrepresented the source you cited. Also, mutations that cause disease and repair of genes are only marginally relevant to the genetic mutations that lead to genetic diversity and genetic drift that leads to the adaptation to environments and evolution over time.
I cited the source word for word for the specific definition of mutation to avoid such arguments. But do you know what is really nonsensical terminology? It’s your claim that mutations are only marginally relevant to genetic mutations as if the first one is not genetic mutations? What are you talking about?
And what is your big point about genetic drift? The essence of the evolutionary concept is “change”. Genetic drift doesn’t create new alleles; it’s only about how
already-existing alleles are passed down. So it neither can increase genetic diversity nor create new information.
How some random frequency shifts of
existing allele (that get passed from parents to offspring) is an argument for an evolutionary change based on increase of info?
It appears that you typically involve some terminology (such as fractal geometry and Chaos Theory, etc.) with no purpose but to make your argument appear to an uninformed reader as legit or have actual explanatory merit but it’s not. What is the mechanism through which fractal geometry exerts influence over matter or life? How it controls the outcome of mutations? You explain nothing by throwing in some terminology. You need to demonstrate how it supports your argument otherwise, it’s meaningless.