Intelligent Design

[The Inquisition]

Ohh, gosh, do I even want to do this? Okay, I hope I'm not wasting my time: "molecules to man evolution," is a simplistic, dishonest creationist ploy to strawman a complex interdependent set of topics that constitute real evolution, but I will say that common ancestry is the best possible conclusion we can reach based on the available evidence, and no amount of desperate twisting will change that.


That's called mutation, though apparently you knew this and have a terrible understanding of what mutation is, judging from what you've written here.


Firstly: what is "genetic information," and why is it relevant to biological evolution?

Secondly, not all mutations are harmful. Many are completely benign, or actively positive, and they'd have to be: humans have at least sixty mutations from the moment they're born. If you want some examples of positive mutations, assuming you're entering this discussion in good faith and actually want to learn, I would suggest looking up Nylonase, the new digestive structures that arose in Italian Wall Lizards, and tetrachromia in humans. All of them are directly beneficial mutations with no downside at all.


So, do you have, like, any education at all in biology, or are you just cribbing everything from creationist resources?

Molecules to man may be worded simply, but it isn't dishonest considering that materialists believe that molecules gradually combined to form either RNA or protein, which then increased in complexity via mutation and natural selection resulting in mankind.

Mutation does not increase complexity. Point mutations just change existing DNA leading to a decrease in function (which can be advantageous in certain environments, but it is still degrading the information). Gene duplication is the evolutionist way of explaining increasing complexity, but duplicated genes are silenced in the offspring, and because natural selection can only work on expressed phenotypes from the protein product of the gene, there is no way for a duplicated gene to eventually settle into a new function if it is not being expressed. The only point mutation that can actually add new nucleotides to the genome are insertion mutations, which are always harmful considering that they push each following codon back one nucleotide, which changes EVERY following amino acid in the protein.
Bacteria have the capability to acquire new genes from the environment or from conjugation, but the genes they acquire were already in existence and are not the result of mutation. I would suspect that this is the case with nylonase. I am skeptical of new digestive structures being produced through mutation. I could see existing structures altering, which is still well within the parameters of the variation I would expect based on how genes are regulated.

Biological information is the specific sequence of nucleotides that produce proteins capable of accomplishing a specific task. Functional sequences are rare, yet our genome's are full of them.

I am a biology major with a chem minor at my university and plan to get a PhD in molecular biology.

Really? There are no genes that a bacteria acquires that are mutated?

You're using terms like "complexity" loosely, define them before tossing them about in such a cavalier fashion.