Fact check: An organism cannot gain new genetic information, only lose it or adapt its features slightly, never gaining new features.

1. Summary of the results

The original statement, "an organism cannot gain new genetic information, only lose it or adapt its features slightly, never gaining new features," is overwhelmingly refuted by the provided scientific sources. All analyses contradict the statement and provide evidence of organisms gaining new genetic information. Several examples of such gains are consistently cited across sources: lactose tolerance in humans ^{[1] [1] [1]}, the development of a two-chambered heart in sea squirts ^{[1] [1] [1]}, the emergence of the TRIM5-CypA protein in monkeys offering retrovirus protection ^{[1] [1] [1]}, and gene duplication leading to new functions ^{[1] [1] [1]}. The sources detail specific mechanisms like mutations ^{[1] [1] [2] [1] [3]}, gene regulation changes ^[2], horizontal gene transfer ^[2], and gene duplication ^{[1] [1]} as ways new genetic information is acquired. ^{[1] [4] [5] [1] [2] [1] [3] [6]}

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

While the analyses strongly support the acquisition of new genetic information, one source ^[6] introduces a nuanced perspective. It acknowledges mutations create genetic variations, but questions the statistical likelihood of complex multi-mutation features arising randomly. This suggests potential limitations on the rate or complexity of new genetic information emergence through random mutations alone, although it doesn't deny the core principle of information gain. Further research might explore the interplay of random mutations and other evolutionary mechanisms like natural selection in shaping complex traits. Additionally, the sources focus on biological evolution; exploring the parallels with information theory, as suggested by one analysis ^[5], could provide further context.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement aligns with creationist or intelligent design arguments, which often posit that biological systems are too complex to arise through evolutionary processes alone. These perspectives often benefit from portraying evolution as incapable of generating new genetic information, bolstering the argument for a supernatural creator or designer. Accepting the original statement benefits groups who subscribe to these viewpoints by reinforcing their worldview and potentially influencing public opinion against evolutionary science. Conversely, scientists and educators benefit from accurate representations of evolutionary biology, as it is a cornerstone of modern biological understanding. Disseminating misinformation hinders scientific literacy and can impact related fields like medicine and conservation.