Why do you capitalize every letter in Ã¢â‚¬Å“novelÃ¢â‚¬Å“?Ã‚Â How can a gene duplicating, one copy of which mutates, not amount to an increase of new information on the genome?
Because it is using genes that are already there to replicate, for life to arise via abiogenesis(Which is what is taught in the textbooks that you refer to) there would need to be another way for new information to arise, if it did happen, we should still be seeing it happen today.
It does not support abiogenesis or natural selection (and I would never assert that it did) but it does answer your point as to how a genome can acquire more novel information.
It does not answer my point, evolution and natural selection is tied to the origin of life whether you choose believe it or not.
My Ã¢â‚¬Å“versionÃ¢â‚¬Â of natural selection is the normal textbook understanding of natural selection - that more adapted phenotypes will be more likely to proliferate than those less adapted leading to change in the gene pool - and has been observed and is therefore not supernatural.Ã‚Â In your first paragraph in your last post you expand natural selection to include genomes acquiring novel information; an understanding of mutations and the genome came after Darwin had identified natural selection as the impetus to trait frequency change within a population.
Please letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not accuse each other of Ã¢â‚¬Å“tacticsÃ¢â‚¬Å“.Ã‚Â I am writing what I have come to believe from undergraduate and personal study.
For the theory to work with abiogenesis and evolution in its entirety it will have to be supernatural. What you are doing is separating evolution and abiogenesis in order to make natural selection and macro evolution look more viable. Acquiring novel information on the genome would be a necessity for natural selection, especially in the early stages of evolution.
As far as accusation of tactics are concerned, I call it as I see it and you agreed to the terms of these forums when you signed up to be able to post on it. You are obligated to follow the rules. Mischaracterizing someone else's position or anything of the sort is unacceptable.
Don't buy into those talkorigins arguments. They aren't even reviewed before being released on the internet. Any mutation on the genome is the result of a loss of information on the genome, not an increase of information. If this is the case, then there is a major problem when it comes to explaining the complexity and diversity on the genome when you tie the hypothesis to abiogenesis or the early stages of evolution. As an atheist, if you want to argue the validity of natural selection or evolution as you see it, you have to account for the origin of life. Since you go by the textbook, how can you not accept that natural selection does not support abiogenesis but attempt to argue in favor of it?
To reiterate my point, in case I lost you. I am not asserting that duplication does not result in mutations or even beneficial mutations. What I am saying to you is that all of these mutations are the result of information that was already present, not novel information. If mutations occur only via tinkering of DNA then your theory of evolution and natural selection has a huge problem when it comes to the origins of complex organisms.
I will conclude this post by citing part of a scientific paper called "Complexity" Dr. Joseph Bozorgmehr.(And this is my point in summary.)
"All life depends on the biological information encoded in DNA with which to synthesize and regulate various peptide sequences required by an organismÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s cells. Hence, an evolutionary model accounting for the diversity of life needs to demonstrate how novel exonic regions that code for distinctly different functions can emerge. Natu- ral selection tends to conserve the basic functionality, sequence, and size of genes and, although beneficial and adaptive changes are possible, these serve only to improve or adjust the existing type. However, gene duplication allows for a respite in selection and so can provide a molecular substrate for the development of biochemical innovation. Reference is made here to several well-known examples of gene duplication, and the major means of resulting evolutionary divergence, to examine the plausibility of this assumption. The totality of the evidence reveals that, although duplication can and does facilitate important adaptations by tinkering with existing compounds, molecular evolution is nonetheless constrained in each and every case. Therefore, although the pro- cess of gene duplication and subsequent random mutation has certainly contributed to the size and diversity of the genome, it is alone insufficient in explaining the origination of the highly complex information pertinent to the essential functioning of living organisms."
This is the problem I am pointing out with your belief.