(January 13, 2016 at 8:35 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:(January 13, 2016 at 8:29 pm)AAA Wrote: Those aren't misrepresentations. Obviously we all know that abiogenesis and evolution are two different things. But the fact that they are related is not up for debate. My second statement was true. Tell me how information can be added to organisms? You actually think mutation is capable of helping the organisms.?
I will leave you with this to watch. It's 10 minutes, you have no right to complain about the length.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs
I watched it. They say nobody defines information. That is the specified order of nucleotide or amino acid characters that lead to a desired function. There are advantages that can arise from defective proteins in different environments. For example, bacteria that have deformed membrane proteins which can prevent certain antibiotics from entering the cell. They also can hardly get their food source from the environment, and are always outcompeted by the wild type (older) organisms with less mutations. The guy was incredibly biased, and some of the mutations he said were advantageous were not. We talked about the over-expression of certain genes leading to large muscle mass in my genetics class last semester. It gives them additional health problems with mobility and others. Same with bone density. There is a potential inverse relationship between bone density and agility and jumping ability. The other beneficial mutations likely are paired with some other negative side affect. Ask yourself why these supposedly new traits never evolved in the past? The same mechanism that led to such intricate structures as the ribosome can't lead to something as simple as more muscle?
They also go on to talk about how 95% of the genome is junk DNA, when this has been discredited thoroughly and excepted by most geneticists.