Global Warming Is Spurring Evolution

Sorry, I didnt phrase that correctly. I know things do not just 'get' dna.

I'm sorry Tony, but what you said misses the point of the statements made by the journal author and misunderstands how evolution works. I do not wish to make assumptions that are way off-base, but your comments seem very close to those made by creationists or ID advocates here in the states. Anyway, on to the dissection -

"I refer to the above comment: "We are seeing genetic changes".

Not true."

So there are no genetic differences between parents and offspring? There is no such thing as microevolution, or variation within a group? Genetic change doesn't mean a dinosaur laying an egg and a bird coming out, but rather descent with modification on at least the genetic level if not the phenotypic level as well.

"What we are witnessing is the changing selection of DNA *within the gene pool* of the creatures referred to.

None of the creatures are developing new DNA."

You haven't mentioned any creatures at all, and I doubt you're familiar with the literature or studied any of them, much less any papers on the various modes of speciation. I agree that the change at the moment is happening on the level of variation, and possibly speciation, but we haven't seen any new phyla emerge. Still, "none of the creatures are developing new DNA" is a rather broad and vauge statement, and technically any variation within DNA would make it "new" i.e. not old. I assume you're referring to the idea that no new information is being added, which is true, but who says you can't do new things with old DNA? Just look at Hox genes. They are widespread through various Orders and Families of organisims, helping everything from ourselves to fruit flies determine their body organization. None of it is "new", just using the same (or similar) genes in new ways.

"It's just that certain features are being *selected* as the climate changes."

Would this be natural selection by any chance? The mode by which Darwin postulated species would evolve via descent through modification? This statement is accurate enough - certain animals are more successful than others because their traits are allowing them to have more (or stronger) offspring, essentially selecting certain traits.

"Take dogs as an example. One can select DNA to produce Pekinese, Alsations, Dachshunds, Irish Setters, Great St. Bernards etc. But they remain dogs, all using parts of the original gene pool of the first pair of dogs."

What you're referring to here is what creationists call bariminology, or dogs beget dogs and nothing else. Is this to say that dogs are NOT related to wolves? And wolves not related to any other of the Carnivora? Even though all the breeds you mentioned are dogs, their DNA does differ, otherwise they'd all look the same. Man artificially selected them, and therefore they are not a good example for how natural selection works. You mention "the first pair of dogs" as well. Would this be the Adam and Eve of the dog world? Where did they come from? Out of thin air or by the hand of God? What evidence do you have that wolves or dogs did not initially evolve?

"Yes, mutations may occur occasionally, but mutations are always corruptions. They are harmful and either do not survive for long or simply result in a loss of genetic information."

This view is incorrect and shows a lack of understanding of genetics. All mutations change DNA, and many are deleterious, but a mutation can be deleterious and be beneficial. Biological organisms and processes aren't very efficient, so if for instance you're a fish that can see the color red, this isn't very useful because red fades out very fast in the water column. If a mutation occurred that stopped you from seeing red, it wouldn't be a bad thing because you really didn't need it, and it may even be beneficial because it frees up your eyes to do new things, or at least less energy is spent trying to see red wavelengths. This idea is better described by Sean Carroll in his new book Making the Fittest, where he goes on at length about "fossil genes" and what they mean to the evolutionary process. Just because a mutation is "deleterious", or changes things up a little, doesn't mean that it's always a bad thing.

"It is not possible for any creature to 'gain' DNA, to gain genetic improvement."

I am not an expert on genetics, but if creatures can't "gain" genetic information how do you account for the differing amounts of DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc. across the diversity of life? Where did this come from? How do you account for the duplication of the entire genome in zebrafish? Were they created ex nihilo with different amounts? You haven't given anything to back up your claim other than your say-so. Also, gaining genetic "improvement" is different than the sum total of DNA increasing, and mutations and selective pressure can lead to an organism being better adapted to an envrionment, which I would call an improvement (although there is no defined endpoint as envrionments are constantly changing).

"What we are seeing is emphatically not evolution, but cases of selection of genes for particular environments as climate changes."

Emphatically not evolution, eh? Well, the process isn't anywhere near done, and who are you to say that the continued pressure on the ecology will not result in new kinds of animals? Evolution doesn't have an end point, and while right now we're primarily seeing microevolution and potential for speciation, given enough time and the right pressure new higher taxa could indeed evolve. You seem to be denying it from a philosophical standpoint because you don't like the idea of evolution, but evolution is a constant, ongoing process that has to start somewhere, and for you to say that this isn't evolution at all speaks to your closed mind on the subject. Unless you can see into the future, I don't see how you can be so emphatic.

"That's why, for example, bears are white in the polar region - but not elswewhere. White hairs were already in the gene stock. They are not new."

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Are you saying all bears were initially white? Then the brown bears would have to have changed their color because of (gasp) evolution, as well as other characteristics that make them different. You fail to explain your support here other than what seems like common-sense taken with a creationist worldview, and I don't see any merit to it. The differences in bears extends to more than just hair color, which is why brown bears, black bears, polar bears, panda bears, sun bears, sloth bears, and spectacled bears are all different.

"If anyone thinks it possible for a creature to *gain* new genetic information and 'evolve', please give me one example! Just one."

There are plenty of examples of macroevolution, and I suggest you check out the TalkOrigins archive online. It is a wonderful resource on the subject. You seem to have already made up your mind on the subject of evolution based on a particular worldview and you don't seem familiar enough with genetics or evolution to accept even a correct answer, so why should anyone respond with examples if you're going to reject them outright anyway? I suggest you read up on Gould, Wilson, Mayer, Darwin, Carroll, etc. to get a better idea of what evolution is, how it works, and how we know it has occurred. Evolution is a fact - we might not know all the processes by which it occurrs, but we know it happens just like we know it's gravity that's keeping me from floating off into space. Anyway, I hope I was not too terribly insulting, but I suggest you make yourself more familiar with the debate and use more specifics in your argument if you're going to try to make any sort of constructive criticism. To the author of the original post, I agree with you and we should watch the evolutionary trends occurring in various parts of the world with great interest to better understand how such a marvelous process occurs.