Want Some Answers ???Evolutionism
>>In an answer to Tom a bit back you wrote:
'…its very important that there are NO changes to the DNA code of information. I know it's possible with a great deal of intelligence to genetically breed a slightly different kind within a species. We need a plan, concept, blue print and a great amount of information. But we don't know how to add to the DNA and say, give flight back to a flightless bird. That requires a huge amount of information and a huge amount of expertise.….. Since there's no upward DNA complexity evolution is nonsense….'
I would like to know how you explain sickle cell anemia and cystic fibroses, which have been traced back to changes in DNA. In the case of sickle cell, leading to adaptation to malaria in Africa. In the case of CS leading to impairment of the person.<<
I was saying to Tom that while there can be 'changes' in the DNA, (ie mutations and loss of information) we never see an accidental increase of information (ie, coding for new structures, functions, for greater complexity). Darwinian evolution requires a constant increase of information - changes for higher complexity, which we don't see. Better to have 'no changes' random mutation 'changes' are bad.
As I understand sickle-cell anemia, it involves a mutation (an inherited random change or defect). But it doesn't mean complicated life arose from simple organisms. We know genetic defects cause over 5,000 known diseases, including "sickle cell anemia" and "cystic fibrosis".
"Sickle-cell anemia" is caused by an inherited defect in the instructions which code for the production of hemoglobin. You only develop the full-blown serious disease if both parents have the defective gene. If you inherit the defect from one and the healthy gene from the other parent, you escape the serious effects. So carriers can transmit the defective gene to children and they are less likely to develop malaria, which is often fatal. Carriers are common in high-risk "malaria" areas of the world, as you mention "Africa".
If one is resistant to malaria, they are more likely to survive to pass on their genes. But "they are also subject to 'growth impairment, susceptibility to infection, and chronic organ damage due to repeated vaso-occlusive episodes'". And the condition is still a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function. And having more carriers in the population means ultimately there will be more suffering the full-blown disease - not helpful for survival.
So I believe it's not an advance in evolutionary terms but a loss of information and contrary to good health under normal circumstances. No known mechanism of mutation, either at the gene level or the chromosome level has been discovered which will produce evolutionary advancement. Because all molecules involved in replication (DNA, RNA, protein) are interdependent with each other and don't function in isolation. In other words the cell and its genetic contents, give the appearance of having been an initially created complex unit ready to work.
Thanks for the question.
>>But is not the DNA change in the case of sickle cell animina a change (an increase) in the information content of the cell ?<<
You can be 100% sure that there is no 'increase of information'. If it was, evolutionists would emphasize it as proof of evolution. And provide hundreds of similar examples.
I understand how the idea of resistance to 'malaria' sounds like up-hill evolution but the resistance comes from a defect or mutation. Mutations are not evolution. They are copying mistakes in the genes. No mutation is known to 'increase information' content; every known mutation has either decreased information content or was informationally neutral. This applies even to the rare examples of beneficial mutations. Hundreds have been investigated and none found to result in an 'increase of information'.
For 'sickle cell' a person needs a medical doctor because of "'growth impairment, susceptibility to infection, and chronic organ damage" and more carriers mean more full-blown disease.
Thousands of hereditary diseases are caused by inherited mutational defects that have no effect on the outcome or the expressed meaning of the DNA code. The idea that accidental copying mistakes generates more information is wishful thinking, not science.
Evolutionary theory requires billions of ‘uphill’ chance-mutations adding information. But all we observe are generally neutral or informationally downhill - defects which lose/corrupt information. Even the rare ‘beneficial’ mutations are downhill changes, or a loss of information. Although they might have a survival advantage, they are headed in the wrong direction for evolution (eg., flightless beetles that have lost the information to fly, so are not blown off an Island and drown. Deep sea fish that are blind, so can survive better in a place where eyes are can be easily damaged).
Germs resistant to drugs or antibiotics ('superbugs') are similar examples. Drugs or antibiotics wipe out all the non-resistant germs, so the more resistant germs survive and multiply. This leads to a whole population that’s resistant to antibiotics. This is not evolution because the resistance already existed in the population. Doctors say that antibiotic overuse or under-use can result in antibiotic resistance in many types of bacteria.
If you fail to complete a prescribed course of antibiotics ie., stop taking the drug when the symptoms ease, it just means that most germs have been destroyed. The remaining germs need more antibiotics to finish them off, but if treatment stops, those germs multiply. This time the drug is far less effective, since the remaining germs tend to be the more resistant ones.
The problem of 'resistant' germs applies not only to the targeted germ, but all the other types affected by the same antibiotic. That’s why the US medical authorities were concerned with people taking Cipro for a few days because of the anthrax scare. Over-use of Cipro could result in many resistant germs. It's well documented today, many ‘superbugs’ are really ‘superwimps’.
Do you know what's best for resistant germs? – Natural selection - that kills bacterium resistance to drugs - healthy germs kill off (breed faster than) the damaged or mutants. So natural selection eliminates mutations. The information-losing mutations can transfer resistance, but it's not Darwinian evolution.
Hope this makes sense, if not let me know.