jstates1 said:

And the textbooks they will be taught from teach the philosophy of evolution.

"Philosophy"? So am I to understand that you believe evolution is not a fact of biology? Ironic given that you make your charge from a position of education. If this is the case I might suggest you refrain from getting your education from the pulpit and seek out actual knowledge. Here are a few starting points on clipmarks :
Argument from Improbability refresher
Evolution : Not just a "Theory"
[url=http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/E4B59B7A...

jstates1 said:

And the textbooks they will be taught from teach the philosophy of evolution.

"Philosophy"? So am I to understand that you believe evolution is not a fact of biology? Ironic given that you make your charge from a position of education. If this is the case I might suggest you refrain from getting your education from the pulpit and seek out actual knowledge. Here are a few starting points on clipmarks :
Argument from Improbability refresher
Evolution : Not just a "Theory"
Evolution vs Creationism
as well as on the web :
Evolution for Creationists

jstates1 said:

that the parents believe will be detrimental to their growth as human beings.

The only "detriment" to learning evolution is to religion because educated people are less likely to accept mythology. Perhaps that is why you find that more intelligent and educated people tend to be less religious

jstates1 said:

I'd say the education system owes it to the populace to be as objective as possible.

They are trying, but ridiculous claims by people of religion seek to subvert education as a means of protecting their own interest.

jstates1 said:

It cannot be legally forced down anyone's throats like a textbook can.

Are you sure? The military seems to be trying What if you need medical attention but the doctor doesn't agree with your religion?

"Philosophy"? So am I to understand that you believe evolution is not a fact of biology?

It is all philosophy. We make assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions ad infinitum. There is absolutely NO WAY you can prove a truth about evolution. You weren't there. No one was.

We develop theories based on tests that assume certain constants remaining true over vast amounts of time and that these constants exist in a vacuum of influences and contamination. And as reasonable and as logical as they may be (seem), there is no way to declare them absolute universal truths.

Our reality is the sum of our individual perspectives. The more we learn a...

"Philosophy"? So am I to understand that you believe evolution is not a fact of biology?

It is all philosophy. We make assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions ad infinitum. There is absolutely NO WAY you can prove a truth about evolution. You weren't there. No one was.

We develop theories based on tests that assume certain constants remaining true over vast amounts of time and that these constants exist in a vacuum of influences and contamination. And as reasonable and as logical as they may be (seem), there is no way to declare them absolute universal truths.

Our reality is the sum of our individual perspectives. The more we learn about the world and universe around us, the more we realize we don't know.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the desire to understand and make sense of what we believe to be reality. It is the journey... not the destination.

knslyr said:

You weren't there. No one was.

No one alive today witnessed the signing of the declaration of Independence, does that mean it is rational to accept that it just "popped" into being? Can you be intellectually honest to challenge the Constitution based on the fact that there are no living witnesses? I could argue that even seeing something is not to witness it directly because your eyes are only absorbing the photons that reflected away from the actual event.

This is a narrow minded argument that ignores much of the processes we use to determine understanding. We do not need direct observation in order to comprehend the world around us. Evolution has mountains of eviden...

knslyr said:

You weren't there. No one was.

No one alive today witnessed the signing of the declaration of Independence, does that mean it is rational to accept that it just "popped" into being? Can you be intellectually honest to challenge the Constitution based on the fact that there are no living witnesses? I could argue that even seeing something is not to witness it directly because your eyes are only absorbing the photons that reflected away from the actual event.

This is a narrow minded argument that ignores much of the processes we use to determine understanding. We do not need direct observation in order to comprehend the world around us. Evolution has mountains of evidence to support it. Even so, you are quite open to develop a better idea, so long as all the facts fit your idea.

Religion tries to do this, but ironically it is more suited to your argument than evolution is. Where evolution has corroborating evidence, religion relies on little more than trusting what is being said is true. In fact, it relies on "faith" as a central means of belief, which means to literally believe regardless of what, if any, evidence is presented.

knslyr said:

And as reasonable and as logical as they may be (seem), there is no way to declare them absolute universal truths.

There is always going to be something that we don't know, but to simply allow the unknown to overwhelm us to the point of being afraid to accept a conclusion is just self defeating. If a "universal truth" is actually malleable and changes over time then there will be indications of that left over time. One example of that is the expansion rate of the universe.

But none of this changes the fact that evolution does happen. The theory of it, or the philosophy of it is our understanding of how it works.

We make assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions ad infinitum.

Are you talking about science or religion. If you're talking about science you don't know much about the scientific method. Your assertion is simple dead wrong.

There is absolutely NO WAY you can prove a truth about evolution. You weren't there. No one was.

This simply is inane. The entire field of biology is based on evolution. There is ample evidence to support evolution.

We develop theories based on tests that assume certain constants
remaining true over vast amounts of time and that these constants exist
in a vacuum of influences and contamination[/...

read more»

We make assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions ad infinitum.

Are you talking about science or religion. If you're talking about science you don't know much about the scientific method. Your assertion is simple dead wrong.

There is absolutely NO WAY you can prove a truth about evolution. You weren't there. No one was.

This simply is inane. The entire field of biology is based on evolution. There is ample evidence to support evolution.

We develop theories based on tests that assume certain constants
remaining true over vast amounts of time and that these constants exist
in a vacuum of influences and contamination

Are you attempting to describe the scientific method? You're way off the base. There are no constants that exist in a "vacuum of influences and contamination". Might be so in theology where dogma is set but while there are certain constants in science that appear to be similiar, if tomorrow new evidence was discovered that refuted these constants, they would have to be altered or dropped altogether.

And as reasonable and as logical as they may be (seem), there is no way to declare them absolute universal truths.

Again, this is not how science works. Science doesn't deal with "absolute universal truths". You have confused religion and science.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge and the desire to understand and
make sense of what we believe to be reality. It is the journey... not
the destination.

This is what confuses me. After making several confuesed references to science you come up with this declaration which is correct. You seem to have ended up at the right place buy how you got here I'm not sure.

No one alive today witnessed the signing of the declaration of Independence, does that mean it is rational to accept that it just "popped" into being? Can you be intellectually honest to challenge the Constitution based on the fact that there are no living witnesses? I could argue that even seeing something is not to witness it directly because your eyes are only absorbing the photons that reflected away from the actual event.

Yes. Of course. That's exactly what I'm saying. Because you or I weren't there, it simply appeared.

Yes, the popping into existence of the Constitution and the subtle changes of evolution over millions of years are one in the same. Give me a freaki...

No one alive today witnessed the signing of the declaration of Independence, does that mean it is rational to accept that it just "popped" into being? Can you be intellectually honest to challenge the Constitution based on the fact that there are no living witnesses? I could argue that even seeing something is not to witness it directly because your eyes are only absorbing the photons that reflected away from the actual event.

Yes. Of course. That's exactly what I'm saying. Because you or I weren't there, it simply appeared.

Yes, the popping into existence of the Constitution and the subtle changes of evolution over millions of years are one in the same. Give me a freaking break.

We do not need direct observation in order to comprehend the world around us.

At least you worded this correctly. You are right, we do not need direct observation in order to comprehend the world around us. We aren't stating universal truths or things we KNOW with absolute CERTAINTY to be true... we use direct observation to give meaning and importance to the world around us. From those direct observations we develop THEORIES and given enough experimentation and information, we draw conclusions.

My problem isn't with scientific method, logic or drawing conclusions. It's with people who spew theories and facts, heralding these unprovable ideologies as unassailable truths. And it is exactly this myopic insistence that impedes learning and understanding.

How many innovations or developments would never have existed if rebel scientists had discontinued research because conventional wisdom at the time already "knew" the answer? Sir Isaac Newton? Galileo?

In truth, you and I "know" exactly the same about the beginning of human existence on this planet... absolutely nothing. However we certainly have our own research, theories and beliefs about it. And that's makes up our understanding

This simply is inane. The entire field of biology is based on evolution. There is ample evidence to support evolution.

AtlLiberal, I think you may have misunderstood the topic of my original comment. And upon rereading it, I can see how that could have happened. For that I apologize.

I believe 100% that living organism evolve. We have evidence based on direct observation that living organisms evolve. No argument there.

My problem is with people telling me they know with absolute, unassailable certainty how life (and specifically human beings) came to be on this planet. That somehow they (or the scientists they are quoting) have irrefutable knowledge and understa...

This simply is inane. The entire field of biology is based on evolution. There is ample evidence to support evolution.

AtlLiberal, I think you may have misunderstood the topic of my original comment. And upon rereading it, I can see how that could have happened. For that I apologize.

I believe 100% that living organism evolve. We have evidence based on direct observation that living organisms evolve. No argument there.

My problem is with people telling me they know with absolute, unassailable certainty how life (and specifically human beings) came to be on this planet. That somehow they (or the scientists they are quoting) have irrefutable knowledge and understanding of the complete evolutionary mapping... from the very first spark of life. I have a problem with them telling me that what they believe is FACT.

I don't mind you telling me that you "believe" humanity evolved from single cell organisms, or that you "think" our ancient ancestors were related to chimpanzees. But don't tell me you "know" this for a "fact."

Personally I don't think Science and Religion are mutually exclusive. Sir Isaac Newton somehow found peace with both. I'd like to do the same.

If you ask me, I believe God created the universe. I choose to use science, reason and logic to explore, question and hopefully understand this wonderful universe He created. I may not "know" any answers, but I love asking the questions.

knslyr said:

Yes, the popping into existence of the Constitution and the subtle changes of evolution over millions of years are one in the same. Give me a freaking break.

You are absolutely right, that does sound freaking ridiculous doesn't it? But that is exactly what you indicated. Your claim is that we cannot accept something as a truth based on the evidential information gathered. If you accept something as a truth and then use that truth in other areas and the work pans out, then that is even more support towards a truth.

knslyr said:

It's with people who spew theories and facts, heralding these unprovable ideologies as unassailable truths.

As opposed to those that s...

knslyr said:

Yes, the popping into existence of the Constitution and the subtle changes of evolution over millions of years are one in the same. Give me a freaking break.

You are absolutely right, that does sound freaking ridiculous doesn't it? But that is exactly what you indicated. Your claim is that we cannot accept something as a truth based on the evidential information gathered. If you accept something as a truth and then use that truth in other areas and the work pans out, then that is even more support towards a truth.

knslyr said:

It's with people who spew theories and facts, heralding these unprovable ideologies as unassailable truths.

As opposed to those that spew beliefs and faiths, heralding unprovable ideologies as god's truth? Who needs to give who a break?

As I said before, give me a better explanation. Please present what data, information, and conclusions you have that would replace that of evolution. If it fits and works and is supported you'll be famous and the theory of evolution will change. But again, the theory may change, but the fact of it remains.

knslyr said:

In truth, you and I "know" exactly the same about the beginning of human existence on this planet... absolutely nothing.

I would say you are wrong. Having even small bits of evidence left over to examine would increase one's knowledge of any truth. You are attempting to eliminate the path to understanding by saying the only way to find a truth is to be there rather than to follow the clues. That's just rubbish.

knslyr said:

If you ask me, I believe God created the universe. (snip for space) ... but I love asking the questions.

Really? Sounds to me like you are trying to force the answer into your preconceived belief. That is not science. If you reject evolution simply because "no one was there" then you are being intellectually dishonest.

knslyr said:

My problem is with people telling me they know with absolute, unassailable certainty how life (and specifically human beings) came to be on this planet.

Please show us where you found this tidbit? There is uncertainty in everything, but simply using that as a method of supporting your own belief is, again, intellectually dishonest. If the data points to it, the evidence supports it, science can use it to predict effects, findings, and results then you can be fairly confident that it is true. Evolution is a fact. It's been documented, recorded, and even artificially forced. It's our understanding of it thats theory.

Also, you've now degenerated into another creat...

knslyr said:

My problem is with people telling me they know with absolute, unassailable certainty how life (and specifically human beings) came to be on this planet.

Please show us where you found this tidbit? There is uncertainty in everything, but simply using that as a method of supporting your own belief is, again, intellectually dishonest. If the data points to it, the evidence supports it, science can use it to predict effects, findings, and results then you can be fairly confident that it is true. Evolution is a fact. It's been documented, recorded, and even artificially forced. It's our understanding of it thats theory.

Also, you've now degenerated into another creationist mistake of mixing evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution is about change, not the creation of life.

[quote=knslyrI don't mind you telling me that you "believe" humanity evolved from single cell organisms, or that you "think" our ancient ancestors were related to chimpanzees. But don't tell me you "know" this for a "fact." For someone who claims to accept science with religion I find it ironic that you would then challenge science when it contradicts the religion. Either the science is wrong or the religion is wrong, and religion isn't pulling up anything more than hearsay. I'm thinking again that you are working from the point of forcing science to fit your beliefs. That has a history of failure.

I think you've convinced yourself that science claims absolute truth when, ironically, its religion that does. Science treats findings as truth in order to advance, but is quite content to change its "truths" when the evidence indicates it. How often does religion do that? And I'm not talking about every new age religion that pops up after cherry picking the bible for a new truth.

But none of this changes the fact that evolution does happen.

I once had an evolutionist tell me that "evolution means change, and everyone knows that change occurs, therefore evolution occurs and you're an idiot."

So I am going to carefully clarify what I am rejecting when I say I don't believe in evolution.

(1) Organisms change over time. New species do form. This is empirical; we can observe it.

(2) Such changes, however, have *never* resulted in an increase in genetic information in the genome. Things change, but they are losing genetic information to do so, not gaining it. The law of entropy basically states that things tend to disorder, therefore any doctrine that states that o...

But none of this changes the fact that evolution does happen.

I once had an evolutionist tell me that "evolution means change, and everyone knows that change occurs, therefore evolution occurs and you're an idiot."

So I am going to carefully clarify what I am rejecting when I say I don't believe in evolution.

(1) Organisms change over time. New species do form. This is empirical; we can observe it.

(2) Such changes, however, have *never* resulted in an increase in genetic information in the genome. Things change, but they are losing genetic information to do so, not gaining it. The law of entropy basically states that things tend to disorder, therefore any doctrine that states that organisms are becoming more complex contradicts established science.

Don't believe me? Ask Richard Dawkins (a prominent evolutionist) if he can name just *one* process that results in an *increase* of genetic information in the genome. In one interview, a creationist asked him just that. His response? Five seconds of silence while opening and closing his mouth.

I do not believe in a biological evolutionary process that results in a "better" organism. This idea contradicts established scientific principles.

Evolutionists have been confusing the issue for a long time with their clever use of semantics. For example, at the Scopes trial, evolutionists deliberately confused the process of normal human growth from a zygote (a scientific phenomenon) with the idea of biological evolution (a non-scientific phenomenon).

And if one of you evolutionists cannot give me an observed example or incident in which genetic information in the genome is increased, then you have no legs to stand on because your idea of "evolution" is not really empirical then, is it?

jstates1 said:

The first line of my post should be in quotes. Obviously.

No, you had it right (wink)

His response? Five seconds of silence while opening and closing his mouth.

Please show me this clip/video link?

Such changes, however, have *never* resulted in an increase in genetic information in the genome.

Don't think I've ever heard his one before - got any sources? Genetic changes have 1 of three effects - positive effect (which gives the organism an advantage), negative(results in death or severely handicaps organism vs others), or neutral (no discernible effect). Never heard of an increase or decrease of complexity.

Evolutionists have bee...

read more»

jstates1 said:

The first line of my post should be in quotes. Obviously.

No, you had it right (wink)

His response? Five seconds of silence while opening and closing his mouth.

Please show me this clip/video link?

Such changes, however, have *never* resulted in an increase in genetic information in the genome.

Don't think I've ever heard his one before - got any sources? Genetic changes have 1 of three effects - positive effect (which gives the organism an advantage), negative(results in death or severely handicaps organism vs others), or neutral (no discernible effect). Never heard of an increase or decrease of complexity.

Evolutionists have been confusing the issue for a long time with their clever use of semantics

I have to laugh at this. Religion does nothing BUT cloud the issue and science is confined by presenting a clear case because science tends to monitor itself. If someone claims something inaccurate then other scientists will quickly be all over it. I really find his hard to believe. I think this more of a case of rhetoric.

@ Oortcloud:

I think this is the link to the Dawkins interview. YouTube is blocked from my home PC, so I cannot actually view it to be certain.

Don't think I've ever heard his one before - got any sources? Genetic
changes have 1 of three effects - positive effect (which gives the
organism an advantage), negative(results in death or severely handicaps
organism vs others), or neutral (no discernible effect). Never heard of
an increase or decrease of complexity.

This is absolutely true. However, the positive effect that you mention is only ever caused by a loss of genetic information.

Take a bacteria(um?), for ...

@ Oortcloud:

I think this is the link to the Dawkins interview. YouTube is blocked from my home PC, so I cannot actually view it to be certain.

Don't think I've ever heard his one before - got any sources? Genetic
changes have 1 of three effects - positive effect (which gives the
organism an advantage), negative(results in death or severely handicaps
organism vs others), or neutral (no discernible effect). Never heard of
an increase or decrease of complexity.

This is absolutely true. However, the positive effect that you mention is only ever caused by a loss of genetic information.

Take a bacteria(um?), for example. Bacteria X produces protein Y. Antibiotic Z targets bacteria with protein Y by reacting with the protein to produce a substance lethal to the bacteria. Now, let's say that Bacteria X mutates and loses the genetic information that allows it to produce protein Y. Antibiotic Z is no longer effective on our new bacteria; it has become antibiotic resistant.

However, this is the result of a loss of genetic material, and while our new bacteria may be better equipped than the original to survive in environments where Antibiotic Z is present, under normal circumstances it is actually less equipped to survive than the original.

Mutations result in a loss of genetic information. This loss is sometimes helpful to an organism in specialized environments, but specialization implies that the organism is no longer as adaptable.

The genome of any species is like a good novel. A mutation deletes letters or mixes them around into meaningless combinations. If you "mutate" a few hundred characters in your average book, you will still be able to read it, but it will no longer be the correct original.

The Bible teaches that everything was created perfect, and that after creation, everything was complete. Things have been deteriorating ever since.

Part of this natural breaking down of the world has been the loss of genetic information. We see this all the time in the form of species extinction. New "species" pop up all the time, but really they are a subset of a preexisting species.

This fits with the law of entrop...

The genome of any species is like a good novel. A mutation deletes letters or mixes them around into meaningless combinations. If you "mutate" a few hundred characters in your average book, you will still be able to read it, but it will no longer be the correct original.

The Bible teaches that everything was created perfect, and that after creation, everything was complete. Things have been deteriorating ever since.

Part of this natural breaking down of the world has been the loss of genetic information. We see this all the time in the form of species extinction. New "species" pop up all the time, but really they are a subset of a preexisting species.

This fits with the law of entropy, which states that everything tends towards chaos and disorder.

Life is not getting better. More diverse? Yes. More specialized? Definitely. More fragile? Absolutely.

Interesting. Well I would encourage everyone to go and watch that link because its quite obviously been edited for effect. Dawkins is asked "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the genetic information in the genome?" and after pondering the question for a moment he asks for them to stop. There is a cut to a scene where Dawkins is informed that recording has begun again and he immediatly answers a question. Oddly, the question he answers has nothing to do with the question he was asked. It's pretty obvious that this is a hoax video. Dawson explains the account [url=http://w...

Interesting. Well I would encourage everyone to go and watch that link because its quite obviously been edited for effect. Dawkins is asked "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the genetic information in the genome?" and after pondering the question for a moment he asks for them to stop. There is a cut to a scene where Dawkins is informed that recording has begun again and he immediatly answers a question. Oddly, the question he answers has nothing to do with the question he was asked. It's pretty obvious that this is a hoax video. Dawson explains the account here and provides an answer to the question here.

jstates1 said:

However, the positive effect that you mention is only ever caused by a loss of genetic information

Uhm... I think your genetics are a bit rusty. You might want to hit Wikipedia for starters. Now I'm no genetic expert myself, but even I can see that you are trying to pass off knowledge in a subject you don't have. As AltLiberal says, this stinks of ID psuedo-science.

Mutations result in a loss of genetic information

Explain Tautomerism, Deamination, Transition, and transvertion mutations then. Sometimes there is a deletion, and sometimes there is even an addition, such as what you find in Down's Syndrome cases.

A mutation is a change and that change can add, delete, or alter the current configuration. This really sounds like a psuedo science of mixing an incomplete understanding of both genetics and thermal dynamics and trying to mix them.

jstates1 said:

Mutations result in a loss of genetic information.

jstates1 said:

The genome of any species is like a good novel. A mutation deletes letters or mixes them around into meaningless combinations(emphasis mine)

Now you are contradicting yourself.

The Bible teaches that everything was created perfect, and that after creation, everything was complete. Things have been deteriorating ever since.

The bible also contradicts itself often

Part of this natural breaking down of the world has been the loss of genetic information. We see this all the time in the form of speci...

read more»

jstates1 said:

Mutations result in a loss of genetic information.

jstates1 said:

The genome of any species is like a good novel. A mutation deletes letters or mixes them around into meaningless combinations(emphasis mine)

Now you are contradicting yourself.

The Bible teaches that everything was created perfect, and that after creation, everything was complete. Things have been deteriorating ever since.

The bible also contradicts itself often

Part of this natural breaking down of the world has been the loss of genetic information. We see this all the time in the form of species extinction.

OMG you need to educate yourself! jstates, dude, your understanding of evolution and genetics is terrible! Please, man, try and see this, for just a moment, from our side here. You don't have to accept what we are saying, just try and see what we are dealing with.

Pretend that someone has come up to you and you strike up a conversation about mathmatics. The person tells you that today's kids are being programmed because he has a math book from the 1800's that teaches 0 x 6 = 0 (zero sixes equal 0) but 6 x 0 = 6 (because you still have 6 of something). Do you recognize the flawed logic there? This is I feel in talking to you about evolution and genetics. I don't want to overly insult you, but wow.

Incidently, that math story is quite true. I have a very religious relative that believes exactly that and she insists that Satan has infiltrated the schools to corrupt children. She also thinks FOX news is the only real source of news out there, but that's another story.

Anyway, wow. Again, I'm no expert, but I can certainly see your misconceptions.

Now you are contradicting yourself.

Not so. If I rearrange the letters in the word "who" to get "hwo," I have just lost meaning, thus lost information. "Who" is a meaningful word, "hwo" is not. At least not in English.

sometimes there is even an addition, such as what you find in Down's Syndrome cases

Looking at the effects of this addition, would you say that viable information was added, or meaningless genetic material? There is a difference.

No mutation has ever been observed to add new genetic information into the genome.

I apologize if the clip does not seem convincing to you; I cannot say for certain that the person who posted it on YouTube di...

Now you are contradicting yourself.

Not so. If I rearrange the letters in the word "who" to get "hwo," I have just lost meaning, thus lost information. "Who" is a meaningful word, "hwo" is not. At least not in English.

sometimes there is even an addition, such as what you find in Down's Syndrome cases

Looking at the effects of this addition, would you say that viable information was added, or meaningless genetic material? There is a difference.

No mutation has ever been observed to add new genetic information into the genome.

I apologize if the clip does not seem convincing to you; I cannot say for certain that the person who posted it on YouTube did not edit it; I never watched this particular clip. I did, however, see the original interview.

The footage is probably included in one of AiG's media releases.

jstates1 said:

If I rearrange the letters in the word "who" to get "hwo," I have just lost meaning, thus lost information.

Anagram games? Your example shows us what would be a negative mutation. But if I rearrange the letters in the word "god" to get "dog" that would be a mutation that would be completely viable. I leave it to others to argue if it is a neutral change or a beneficial change.

jstates1 said:

And if one of you evolutionists cannot give me an observed example or incident in which genetic information in the genome is increased, then you have no legs to stand on because your idea of "evolution" is not really empirical then, is it?

Down's Syndrome has been shown...

jstates1 said:

If I rearrange the letters in the word "who" to get "hwo," I have just lost meaning, thus lost information.

Anagram games? Your example shows us what would be a negative mutation. But if I rearrange the letters in the word "god" to get "dog" that would be a mutation that would be completely viable. I leave it to others to argue if it is a neutral change or a beneficial change.

jstates1 said:

And if one of you evolutionists cannot give me an observed example or incident in which genetic information in the genome is increased, then you have no legs to stand on because your idea of "evolution" is not really empirical then, is it?

Down's Syndrome has been shown as an example. Parkinson's Disease is another. But I'm sure you won't rest without examples of beneficial mutations. Look in the article for this statement : "This is the very type of "new genetic information" that creationists frequently claim is impossible"

No mutation has ever been observed to add new genetic information into the genome.

New by your definition? Any change is new genetic information, regardless if it is added, deleted, or simply altered. The end result is that the genes are changed. Here is MORE evidence of added genetic changes :
[url=http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/aminosyn.htm22nd AMINO ACID SYNTHESIZED AND ADDED TO GENETIC CODE OF E.COLI BACTERIA[/url]

Cultures with high-starch diets evolved extra genes to cope

Parkinson's Disease Due to Extra Genes

And one I really think you should read : Can New, Beneficial Genetic Information Arise?