Anonymous asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 1 month ago

Are these true about evolution?

Anyway, my friends and I were debating about whether evolution is real or not and one of them said "Evolution can't be real since science has shown that living beings lose genetic information over time and life can't possibly arise from non-life, There is no known observable process where new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic. For evolution to happen, you would need to add new genetic information to an organism right? Since living organisms cannot create new genetic information, how can anything change into a more advanced organism with higher intelligence or form? How can anything evolve from an amoeba to a man without adding new genetic information?" 

Is this all true? I can't seem to know if the facts they put out were true or not. 

Please, someone, answer my question. Thank you!


Question is answered, thanks. The reason I was asking is that I knew it sounded wrong and I wasn't sure on how it was wrong since I'm not knowledgeable in biology or evolution. I only know about natural selection and stuff like that. Also yes, my friend IS a brainwashed creationist and that's why I was doubting him. 

13 Answers

  • Favourite answer

    No, that is NOT true!

    That is what the LSoS promoters of creationism in their websites and books say, and that clueless lay creationists unthinkingly accept and repeat.

    If it were true, then we would not have to develop new vaccines and new insecticides because organisms have evolved resistance to earlier ones. Nor would we find that organisms have evolved to be better fit in new environments.

    Furthermore, there is absolutely NO evidence that species are any less genetically fit now than they were in the past. If that were true then it would not take long for life to extinguish itself over multiple generations, particularly those with short generation times. Mice, for example, which have a short generation times, appear to be no less fit now than they were thousands of years ago.

    See this link showing how genetic information can increase.

    On top of that, the fossil record FULLY supports the evolution of species over time. See the image below for a relevant example.

    Attachment image
  • D g
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Don't stress yourself 

    Abiogenesis has been shown possible where life as in some simple organic  compounds were created from non organic and electricity like a lightning bolt 

    The rest of your arguments are not worth reading 

  • 1 month ago

    Your friend is a moron for equating evolution with abiogenesis.

  • CRR
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Yes that's true about the Theory of Evolution.

    Evolution by loss of genetic information can happen and this accounts for all observed cases; e.g. desert mice and the London underground mosquito. It is possible for mutations to add an insignificant amount of information but this would not be sufficient to support the theory. Genetic Entropy is real. Darwin Devolves.

    Life arising naturally from non-living matter (Abiogenesis) is impossible. It would be easier for someone to rise from the dead. There is no plausible scientific explanation for how it could have happened but some people do believe it in blind faith.

    [edit] Scientists agree that DNA encodes information. E.g. see Berkeley's Evolution 101 "molecules that encode genetic information"  " information from the DNA"

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 month ago

    Get yourself some intelligent friends. You don't seem to have any.

    Firstly, you are conflating evolution and the origin of life. Two distinctly different fields. Even the Vatican realizes this. Secondly, science cannot "show" a negative. The only thing you can say is that the process has not been demonstrated yet. Unless, of course, you consider the "creation" of amino acids to be life from non-life.

    Further, organic evolution has been demonstrated to occur. Two examples come to mind, a mouse found nowhere else but an island in the Great Salt Lake is one. What is now that island used to be submerged below the surface of Lake Bonneville, the antecedent of the Great Salt Lake. The other example is the London Underground Mosquito, which, obviously, could not have existed before the building of the system.

    As for the rest, I suggest taking a decent course in genetics to learn about polyploidy and other mutations.

  • 1 month ago

    Scientists don't call DNA "information".  Only Creationists do.  Get your info from people who know what evolution is.

  • 1 month ago

    > were debating

    There's no debate.  For all practical purposes, Evolution is real.

    > science has shown that living beings lose genetic information over time

    Natural selection retains what works, so life on Earth continues in an unbroken chain for about four billion years.

    > life can't possibly arise from non-life

    Wrong.  Science hasn't shown that at all.  We have some speculative biochemistry that supports the idea of pretty good replicator RNA systems forming from interesting chemistry and physics going on on early Earth.  It prob'ly took at least 200 million years and a place the size of the Earth before "interesting biochemistry" resembled Biota life as we know it.

    > There is no known observable process where new genetic information can be added to an organism's genetic

    Wrong.  Gene duplications, followed by mutations, can happen.  Viral transduction can happen.  If you want to speculate, there may have been horizontal gene transfer mechanisms going on for quite a while.

  • 1 month ago

    Everything  your say comes from someone brain-washed by a religious fanatic, who believes that the bible is the only source of truth, and refuses to believe anything "scientific".

    There is no truth in ANY of those assertions.  Science has demolished them long ago.  The ironic part of it is that the religious idiots USE cherry-picked axioms of science as a so-called "proof" than evolution is false.  They are hypocrites and liars as well as fools

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Gene duplication is how organisms add genetic information. When there are 2 copes of a gene, one copy can function normally while the other copy can then be used for new functions. Also, many new features are modification of existing ones, so it is easier to come up with new things. Arms become modified into wings or flippers, and fins became modified into arms, for example. Gene duplication is well known and in fact our genome is full of duplicated genes. 

    Genetic information are not lost over time because losing it may make an organism non-functional and they are then eliminated by natural selection. Natural selection eliminates bad genes and organisms that have bad genes. In fact organisms may lose genetic information over their lifetime due to environmental damage, and that is why most organisms do not refrain from reproducing until they are really old. Most organisms reproduce early, so they can pass on their genes to the next generation before their genes are damaged.

  • Zirp
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    Oh but there IS such a process. You see, the DNA-copying process is not completely perfect. Every now and then there's a typo (mutation) in the recipe (allele), and those typos can be passed on to the next generation.

    It's  a very slow process though. Your genome is a library of 47 books, and there's just 10 or so letters in it that you don't share with either parent

  • Ted K
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    1) " has shown that living beings lose genetic information over time..."  THIS IS FALSE.  Pure fabrication.

    2) " can't possibly arise from non-life,..."  THIS IS ALSO FALSE.  Science has shown no such thing.  Also, this is an origin of life issue, which is separate from and independent of evolution, which only deals with pre-existing life.  IOW, as regards evolution, this argument is a total non sequitor.

    3) "For evolution to happen, you would need to add new genetic information to an organism right?"  WRONG.  STUPID WRONG.  This is a criterion for evolution that was invented by creationists, who thought it could give them leverage to argue against it.  But it is decades old, more recent work has demonstrated that new genetic information can arise via several mechanisms, and it completely ignores the fact that "new information" can arise post-DNA via epigenetic mechanisms.

    4) I suggest you read a a basic biology textbook, instead of basing your conclusions on stuff you heard from your "friends,"  who in turn got their "expertise" from creationist websites.  The modern version of creationism started in the early 1960s, and its arguments today are essentially the same as they were then.  IOW, creationists haven't changed their shtick, despite over 60+ years of new information that keeps growing with every passing year--they are perpetually behind the curve on pretty much everything.  Everything they claim has been debunked over and over again, the only reason they still have any traction in this country is because of the pathetic state of scientific literacy among the general public.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.