Why do the Darwinists assert that gene duplication leads to new biological information?
Why ask a question about gene duplication saying on beforehand that darwinists are lying on this matter? Anyway, gene duplication can indeed degenerate, compensate, just like you say. But they do not arise as with an intention to be a functional back-up for a certain gene; it is actually the other way round. Gene duplication might arise due to faults in mitosis, unequal crossing over during meiosis, transposons, etc. A duplicated gene, or a paralog, is a site were mutations can happen without being directly harmful. This way, the duplicated gene is able to change over time (over generations). Eventually a ‘new’ gene may arise with a beneficial function. There’s a lot of evidence that this has led to big bursts of change, major events in evolution are driven by this. A lot of plant species duplicate entire genomes, without a problem. Think about triploids (3n) or tetraploids (4n), polyploids… These are all perfectly functioning plants, that often gained advantages over their predecess
