New genetic information
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Whether or not random chance mutations can create "new" genetic information has been discussed by creationists for many years. Many creationists have used the argument that mutations do not add information to the genome, but contribute to an overall loss of genetic information. Others believe that mutations play a major role in the diversification of organisms, which includes the creation of new alleles and "new information".
"New" genetic information is defined as genetic information that was not previously present in the organism. Often, Evolutionists will say that Creationists are successful with the "no new information" argument because they leave "information" undefined. However, Creationists are not emphasizing "information", which is self defining (such as an RNA sequence) but are emphasizing the term "new", which is left to the observer to determine if in fact the information is "new" to the organism. Also, there needs to be a defining difference between "new information" and "new allele", which could result from pre-existing combinations, but not contain any new information.
Contents |
Proposed mechanisms
Mutations
- Main Article: Mutation
While it is clear that populations often experience diversification and speciation, it remains under debate by most prominent Creation Scientists whether or not this is the result of truly "new" information by mutations.
The issue in question is regarding mutations only. This excludes any mechanisms that might be responsible for obtaining new information intentionally or from the environment. There are known instances where an organism has been shown to harvest the DNA of other organisms for its own benefits. It is also possible to intentional inject DNA into an organisms pre-existing DNA. In all of these cases, mutations are not at the cause.
It is also important to remember that organisms such as animals can not inherit DNA mutations caused during the parents life cycle unless the mutations directly effect the eggs, sperm, or development stage of an embryo.
| Do mutations add "new" information to the genome in a hereditary fashion? *new is defined as information that was not present inside the organism before the mutation. For example: AA + BB = BC? | ||
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Answer | Comments |
| Creation Ministries International | Never or extremely rare | Not impossible, but if it does occur, it is extremely rare and far to much so to be of any use to the Neo-Darwinian mechanism. CMI has stated that there are instances that deserve some credibility.[1] |
| Answers In Genesis | No | Answers in Genesis has always believed that ‘new information’ cannot arise by natural processes—it can only be explained by a Creator who pre-programmed specific traits in the genetic codes of all living things - Dr Purdom January 30th, 2008 [2] |
| CreationTalk | 100% - Never or Extremely Rare | 8 members of the CreationTalk creationist community talk group have so far voted. |
Arguments
Arguments against
Evolutionary assumptions
Examples of new information
There are many examples of scientific papers that are supposed to show how "new" information has been added to the genome of an organism. This section will examine proposed references.
| Example | Reference | Case |
|---|---|---|
| "Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey" | Zhang J, Zhang Y-P, Rosenberg HF, Nature Genetics 30:411-415, April '02' | An example of Duplication and then Divergence to produce a "new" gene in the colobine monkey foregut. |
Duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene
A very common listed example of "new" information being added to the genome of a creature is the introduction of RNAse1B to the colobine monkey. It is believed by evolutionists that RNAse1 was first duplicated and then the second copy mutated.
| “ | Functional assays revealed that the colobine-specific RNASE1B achieves maximal efficiency at pH 6, which is within the pH range of the colobine foregut. This is in contrast to RNASE1, which functions optimally at the pH 7.4 characteristic of the human small intestine. Thus, the preponderance of negative substitutions in the evolution of RNASE1B seems directly related to the enzyme's role in the low-pH colobine foregut. By contrast, site-directed mutagenesis revealed that seven of the nine substitutions that distinguish the sequence of RNASE1B from that of RNASE1 reduce its efficiency in degrading double-stranded RNA, a task of the ancestral enzyme. It appears that the evolutionarily innovative features of RNASE1B arose at the direct expense of efficiency in its ancestral function. [3] | ” |
A mutation has could have occurred that has created a gene with multiple effects. While this gene increases the efficiency of one function, it loses its ancestral function.
Assuming that this was a mutational DNA change, this is an example of a new gene, which was created out of old genes. While this could be considered “new” information, this information could not have arisen without the pre-existence of the information in the organism. It can be hypothesized that the mutations would never have been able to successfully occur without the duplication of RNAse1 in the first place. While duplications are responsible for some adaptation in different populations of organisms, duplications usually have a negative effect on the organism [Reference needed]. Clearly, in the case of the colobine monkey, two copies of RNAse1 were not harmful. It is possible that the only reason RNAse1B was not eliminated, was because it proved beneficial to the monkey instead of catastrophic, thus being passed on generational. This would be considered a rare instance of increased information and the new gene could be considered “new” information. However, creationists could easily argue that this is not new information, just re-arranged information and definitely not morphologically changing information. Evolutionists would consider this “specialization of the gene” and “evidence for evolution.” It does not however fall outside of the creation paradigm.
So the evidence shows that, while there is a new gene, the genes “new” information is a re-arrangement of old information. There are nine substitutions in RNAse1B. A substitution mutation is a mutation caused by a nucleotide base being replaced by a different one. A type of mutation where one of the bases of a genetic sequence is replaced by another, and therefore does not cause frameshift further along the genetic sequence.[4]
Another possibility, is that no mutation mechanism was ever involved. Cellularly inhibited genetic change may have occurred to give the colobine monkey an adaptive edge to eating the leaves that it eats. There is really no way to prove that a mutation is responcible for the changes, and scientific study has shown an ability for organisms to rapidly undergo adaptive changes, including the digestive systems. [5]
See: RNAse1 and RNAse1B comparison chart
