Isn't this first question one you should be answering,
No, that's what you should be answering as you are the one that suggests mutations somehow know how to only pick the bad ones.
since this is something that has to be accounted for by evolutionists?
Nope. Evolutionists believe both good and bad mutations can happen, and they have happened.
Yet, the answer usually is that what is harmful to an organism, or that which natural selection filters out, is non-beneficial. Anything that remains isn't harmful.
Or is beneficial.
Also forgive me if I disagree with the authors conclusion of the page you provided, that a frame shift mutation counts as "new" information—for the amount of information in the genetic code does not change. All that happens is there is a shift in the genetic code sequence by a nucleotide or two. Yet, I don't see the author as being entirely wrong for his binary example was very helpful, as it is true a mutation shift on binary could produce a "new" meaningful word. This is in a sense new information, but it is not because new information was added, it is because the existing information was executed differently (by a frame shift). Therefore the outcome is technically new, although the information content is still the same!
Yes, I know, however I only put it there as an example to show that new things can arise.
Yes, duplication of existing information will add redundant content but not new information. For example, I believe the sequence for fly legs can be duplicated to appear elsewhere on its body in a lab, but this is not new information. You also did not explain how the duplicatation of "have won have won" could turn into "a million dollars." It is not enough to just say it can happen—it needs to be explained how it can happen. What about a frame shift—could this account for such a change?
Ok, let me go in a bit more detail. Say we have the sequence AABBCCDD
and the "target sequence" is AABBCCDDEEFF
We get an error in duplication that creates the sequence AABBCCDDDD
The mutation is not fatal and eventually the organism develops two more mutations:
AABBCCDDDE
AABBCCDDEE
Repeat again to get the last two digits.
AABBCCDDEEEE
AABBCCDDEEFE
AABBCCDDEEFF
Since DNA for all lifeforms is made out of 4 basic chemiccals whose names escape me, pretty much anything is possible.
Let us say
fly legs are "you have legs" and a mutation causes a duplication of two fly legs ("you have legs") to appear on its back. A frame shift mutation then happens which reads the information differently... and wella... we have "a new pair of wings." Sounds good doesn't it? Only problem I see is that "a new pair of wings" is significantly different in information "content" than "you have legs." We would expect to see the same information content for fly legs, as we would for wings, and their only difference would be in the way they deciphered. Now is this the case in reality? Do legs possess the same information content as gills or fins? Is the code really only being deciphered differently?
Well, there isn't much difference in the function that wings and legs have, which is locomotion. Hell, walking and swimming motions aren't that different either. And if I remember correctly, we didn't evolve from fish anyway. You're right about the legs and gills but legs to fins and vice versa seem plausible to me. Like I said, they both serve the function of locomotion and the motion they make to move the animal.
Is it possible for us to have a 100% certainty on any belief that isn't subjective? You are logically correct of course, but macroevolution being unlikely to have happened is more than most will admit when they attempt to smuggle it in under the more ambiguous and less restrictive title of "evolution." Infact why would you wager your life here (i.e., time) away on macroevolution being truth if the winnings of being right are unlikely?
Because all the signs point that it DID happen. When you roll a dice a hundred times and get 6 every time, do you accept the fact that you did indeed get 6 100 times or do you go around claiming it never happened because the chance to get 6 100 times is absurd?
Because we rig the definitions of course.
You do have a good point though that needs clarification. By "macroevolution" I personally see it as an unbounded change, which when faced with reality where we see boundaries, seems far from true. Therefore good reasons need to be provided for why the boundaries we often see are passable to the extent modern humans can come from an ape ancestor, let alone from algae.
I highly doubt anybody is suggesting we came from algae. That aside, I really don't think organisms function all that differently. in my opinion, the biggest mystery lies in early life and how cells became specialized.
Well when compared to an algae to human evolution, I'd say us evolving into Xmen is a far more plausible scenario. It also seems like a copout to say we couldn't observe evolution if it happened, and I'd say the fossil record provides us with enough data to indirectly observe whether any gradual evolution at least would have happened.
Kurieuo
And I find that the fossil record does indeed show that it happened. I'm not quite sure what problems you have with it.
