Can random mutations add new genetic information to DNA?

[Evoskeptic]

There is much talk and armwaving about evolution being a fact.
However until these three questions can be answered it is not yet time to drop the word 'theory' and replace it with 'fact'.
Anyone like to put me right?

1 Science has not been able to provide a mechanism that will enable inanimate chemicals to spontaneously combine to create a reproducing living organism.
2 Random genetic mutations are invariably harmful and even if not cannot add new information to the genome thus increasing its complexity.
3 Science has not yet been able to show a genetic mutation that does in fact add information to the genome.

 

[mfb]

"Theory" is a name for the best thing science can ever have. It is different from the everyday usage of "theory", which would be similar to a "hypothesis" in science.

1 Science has not been able to provide a mechanism that will enable inanimate chemicals to spontaneously combine to create a reproducing living organism.

That has nothing to do with evolution.

2 Random genetic mutations are invariably harmful

Wrong. Useful mutations are observed frequently.

and even if not cannot add new information to the genome thus increasing its complexity.

There are genetic parts which can copy themself, thereby increasing the length of the genome. Let one of those copies change, and you increased the stored information. "Complexity" is a bad measurement.

3 Science has not yet been able to show a genetic mutation that does in fact add information to the genome.

See above.

 

[Evoskeptic]

"Theory" is a name for the best thing science can ever have. It is different from the everyday usage of "theory", which would be similar to a "hypothesis" in science.

That has nothing to do with evolution.

Wrong. Useful mutations are observed frequently.
There are genetic parts which can copy themself, thereby increasing the length of the genome. Let one of those copies change, and you increased the stored information. "Complexity" is a bad measurement.
See above.

Question 1 You may feel that it has nothing to do with evilolution but without it evolution is dead in the water so to speak.

There is one frequently quoted gentic mutation that is not harmful in fact it combats sickel cell anemia but it is a LOSS of information. I suggest that you swot up on what is meant by information. You do not increase information by adding the same instructions multiple time. That's like readding a book with 12 chapters all copies of chapter 1.
Complexity is only a bad word for those who are in denial of its existence.

You need to try again.

 

[mfb]

Question 1 You may feel that it has nothing to do with evilolution but without it evolution is dead in the water so to speak.

It would be dead if it would be impossible to get life from non-living things. But it is known to be possible, as life exists. Just the question "how" is not solved (yet).

There is one frequently quoted gentic mutation that is not harmful in fact it combats sickel cell anemia but it is a LOSS of information.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment
Evolution has been observed in the lab.

You do not increase information by adding the same instructions multiple time.

Sure, but you increase it if one of those copies changes afterwards.

Complexity is only a bad word for those who are in denial of its existence.

Please give a quantitative definition of complexity, to allow the comparison you want to see.
Entropy (as measurement of information content) has a clear definition, can we use this? Entropy of genetic material can increase.

You need to try again.

I do not need to do anything.

 

[Evo]

EvoSkeptic, we only deal with valid mainstream science here, the creationist crackpot/ID tactics you tried here have been debunked ad nauseum.

Thanks mfb for putting up with it.