Originally posted by VoidSpirit
no, that is not what evolution teaches. you failed the test. you'll need to read the origin of species again.
Mutations for Improvement?
At the heart of improving a species or organism is the assumption that mutations will produce more and better traits or characteristics. This requires new information.
The source of all information, as discussed, is in the DNA. For new information to form, there would have to be the injection of said information by a mutation. However, the introduction of “positive” new information is fraught with problems.
For one, most all mutations are negative in effect. (As discussed earlier, inferior organisms [mutations] are removed by the process of natural selection.) This is also true of what are termed “neutral” mutations. Natural processes remove these defects from the genetic map of the creature. In the light of proper natural selection, consider the following from the head of the international Human Genome Diversity Project, evolutionist Luigi Cavalli-Sforza:
“Evolution also results from the accumulation of new information. In the case of biological mutation, new information is provided by an error of genetic transmission (i.e., a change in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child). Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which are rarely beneficial, and more often have no effect, or a deleterious one. Natural selection makes it possible to accept the good ones and eliminate the bad ones” (Genes, Peoples, and Languages, p. 176).
Of course, we have already proven that natural selection does “eliminate the bad ones.” Yet is it true that positive mutations can not only form new information, but cause the formation of new species as well? It is in this hope that evolution must put its trust. Proving that positive, sustainable mutations happen is critical for this assumption.
An often cited example is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It is stated that bacteria, through mutations, adapt to antibiotics. But as the following quote shows, what actually occurs is an information loss, not a gain: “In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways where an information loss can confer resistance” (Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution).
But evolution cannot sustain itself with loss of information. Over time, the result would be no information. The only way higher life-forms could be created, would be with more—in fact, MUCH more—information. For instance, imagine a fish “evolving” into a bird. While this may sound amazing, and actually be ludicrous, it is considered a valid theory in evolution. How could all the necessary new organs and limbs develop without new information? They simply could not!
A simple analogy may explain it best: Imagine all the parts involved in making a light switch work. There are electricity, wires, devices controlling electricity flow, a switch and finally a light. These were all designed to function in a certain way. If the device controlling the amount of electricity were removed from the system, the light would get much brighter. This may seem like an improvement. The room appears better lit and it seems like the entire system has improved with the loss of a device (information).
But the one who designed the system would know that this is not the case. The wires and the light were designed to handle a certain amount of electricity. While it may not appear to be a problem at first, over time, the circuit will overload and stop functioning. And so is the case with mutations. Even though something may appear to be an improvement (as in the case with antibiotic-resistant bacteria), the overall “health” of the organism is diminished.
Regardless of your belief concerning life’s origin, new information is required for more advanced life forms. And, conversely, any information already present is required to remain—either by evolution or being put there by a Designer. Ultimately, the continued loss of genetic information will result in the destruction of the life form—not an improvement!
Finally, regarding the formation of new forms of life, British physicist Dr. Alan Hayward stated, “Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: Mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life” (Creation or Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies).