1. Fine. I will explain one process by which new information can be added. Take a gene. Any gene. Doesnt matter which. Duplicate it (it has been observed). Most gene duplications are neutral. One copy continues to perform its task while the other sits by. Now, either of these genes can mutate without harming the organism. So one continue its function while the other can mutate without worry. As the copy mutates, it will run into beneficial or deleterious mutations. Eiether of those will be an addition of information. Think of it this way. AGTC copies to AGTC, AGTC. A mutatution occurs and it is now AGTC, ATCG. New info. This has all been observed.
2.How the materials arose orgnially, the fisrt life form, is a problem for abiogenesis. Not evolution.
3. He was using it as an example as to how reusing the same materials can yeild different effects.
4.Drosophila genes are but one class of hox gene. Using one example in an attempt to discredit them all is childish at best.
5. You keep saying that, but whenever asked you refuse to back that up. Even when presented with obvious evidence, you keep picking at tiny little points that we have yet to come up with an answer for. It´s no different from when people told Edison he was crazy for trying the lightbulb when he hadnt succeeded yet.
6. It´s been observed. You deny what people have seen, studied, oberved, and replicated many times before?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1. You claim that features arise from “something else” but we’re still waiting for you give us that hypothetical scenario of what that might look like. It should be easy for you as we are giving you the leeway of using fantasy, verses provable facts. If evolutionists can’t even come up with solid hypothetical scenarios on how new features arise from random mutations and natural selection, the theory of evolution is nothing but faith, not science.
2. You also claim that evolution “reused” a previously evolved ion channel (TRPA1) and that some components “predate the deuterostome/protostome split.” You fail to connect that your weak attempt just pushes the creation of them back to a previous time so you still need to explain how these materials arose originally.
3. I have NO idea of what your point is on the medication/pregnant women analogy???
4. In regard to your comment,
“My guess is that at least some of the components, since components of vision go back at least that far (e.g. mouse and human homeobox genes for eye development can cause fly eyes to be expressed in flies)”
Hox (homeobox) genes again?
“Control genes like homeotic genes may be the target of mutations that would conceivably change phenotypes, but one must remember that, the more central one makes changes in a complex system, the more severe the peripheral consequences become. … Homeotic changes induced in Drosophila genes have led only to monstrosities, and most experimenters do not expect to see a bee arise from their Drosophila constructs.” (Mini Review: Schwabe, C., 1994. Theoretical limitations of molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of relaxins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 107B:167–177).
Refer to http://trueorigin.org/homeobox.asp
5. In regard to your comment,
“You are correct when you say that nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity. That ought not compel us to stop finding out why.”
When you figure it out, let us know. But currently, the theory of evolution is still nothing but faith, not science.
6. In regard to your comment,
“Many of these mutated proteins simply affect the rates of other reactions (which go on to spur others), and that alone can be better or worse depending on the situation - think metabolism, or mucus production or adrenalin. “
Think proving they ‘simply’ arose by random mutations and natural selection…
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Random mutations from what? All of these would have come from something else.
There's an interesting case of a considerable amount of reuse of one particular ion channel, TRPA1, which is involved in hearing (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=503849) and expressed in hair cells.
It is also used in other sensory-type situations (http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=TRPA1) - distinguishing strong smells like cinnamon and mustard, as well as participating in the feeling and detection of cold (http://www.molecularpain.com/content/1/1/16)
There is a considerable amount of reuse of genes, proteins and substances. A number of medications are not to be taken or in some cases handled by pregnant women because the reuse is even for different developmental stages - handling things like hair loss medication that interferes with dihydroxytestosterone can interfere with male fetal development at critical stages, since the testosterone by-products do different things at different stages in the womb.
Distal-less is another pretty fascinating example. It's reused in butterfly development in multiple separate stages from segments to legs to wing spots, and humans have it as well (DLX1-4), performing some similar and some different functions.
You are correct when you say that nothing by itself will produce pressure sensitivity. That ought not compel us to stop finding out why.
My guess is that at least some of the components predate the deuterostome/protostome split, since components of vision go back at least that far (e.g. mouse and human homeobox genes for eye development can cause fly eyes to be expressed in flies)
Remember that mutations are not usually a works/doesn't work scenario. There is duplication in the genetic code (usually, spelling changes in the last of the 3 'letters' doesn't matter), plus the biggest driver in protein shape is the attraction or repulsion to water of the amino acids that make it up, and mutations tend to go between amino acids of similar (but not the same) attraction to water. Many of these mutated proteins simply affect the rates of other reactions (which go on to spur others), and that alone can be better or worse depending on the situation - think metabolism, or mucus production or adrenalin.
This is just what we find when we try to find out how things work. The is no grand moral conspiracy here, and I must say the implication of such is confusing at best.