Talk:Evolution of new information

From EvoWiki

Geez! (or should I say Jyeeezus!) I find it hilarious that this page remains empty.....Don't all those folks up there at New Saint Andrew's College (and other's of their ilk...) have time to 'straighten' all the poor deluded souls that take the time to keep all the article and history pages full? (..of great stuff, I must add) When was this "Discussion" page added? Recently? Does anyone know?

Scott Schreiber

You just added it (click 'history', it'll show that you started it). Joe D (t) 16:21, 17 Nov 2004 (GMT)

"Self defeating" point is weak.

The point raised about this argument being self-defeating (response 5) is weak. It assumes that if every biological change can be accomplished without adding information then this fact would somehow contradict the creationist theory. However, a creationist could easily claim that every variation was created from the beginning and so no new information would need to be added. Whether or not that claim is justifiable given the evidence is up for debate (I find it unlikely), but the claim can still be made.

I think the other points address the argument well, but this particular one is not convincing. Perhaps more thought should be put into it. --24.238.242.139

If "every variation was created from the beginning and so no new information would need to be added" doesn't work well with the Flood, does it? The Flood creationists need to explain how two of each kind could become several species. Either that or have trouble with fitting them all unto the Ark. The main problem for the creationists is however that they want to have it both ways. They want lots of variation at the beginning, but few kinds. How can they make those two fit tohether? It's tough to figure out exactly what creationists mean by "information" - apparently they mean to omply that information is positively correlated with genetic variation within the same "kind" - sort of packing a wolf, a poodle, a Great Dane, a chihuahua, a ..., and a ... into one dog. We need to ask them for a more precise information measure. --FreezBee 11:26, 15 May 2006 (BST)

---

Yes, point 5 does not address the Creationist "all variation was there from the beginning" argument. This is because point 5 is explicitly and specifically a rebuttal to a different Creationist argument, that being the "no new information" argument. Why do you imagine that failure to address a separate and unrelated Argument Y is a flaw in a rebuttal intended to rebut a particular Argument X? --172.165.237.77

Hey, can someone clarify this XY AB thing some more? --67.186.72.168

I second that! Because looking at it I'm not thinking new information, just two copies of the A sequence...and copies aren't new...so I really don't see how it's self-defeating...And about the ark stuff, I can't speak for all christians, but I personally believe that poodles, Great Danes, wolves, came from two dogs and they're the result of genetic variation and natural selection. The flood explains alot for me, like how the dinosaurs became extinct and why there are many landforms that would have taken millions of years to create (like the grand canyon) exist when it appears according to the bible that the earth is thousands of years old. The ark was quite large...We can't explain or prove everything we believe, that is why it's called faith.

Do realize that new information arises when each new copy of a gene undergoes different mutations to alter each gene's function. Do also realize that dog breeds are the result of intensive breeding efforts for over 12,000 years. This does not explain how 2 ancestral weevils could become 65,000+ species in under four thousand years. Furthermore, do also realize that if a flood were to have carved the Grand Canyon, the riverbed would be straight with no meandering. How does the Flood explain how dinosaurs became extinct? If they died out after the Flood, why did Noah bother to save them? If they died out before the Flood, then that means Noah was an incompetent.--Mr A. 14:25, 26 September 2007 (BST)

I've updated that example. I think that makes it more clear. If not, please critique it here for me. (As for the above comment of creationism offering a better explanation of the evidence, perhaps you should become more familiar with the scientific explanations. I think you would find they make far more sense, and require far less to believe on faith, than your current beliefs.)--Doddy 14:23, 26 September 2007 (BST)

I think it makes more sense that God created everything than the incredible odds of evolution producing what we have today. The bible's a bit more reliable anyways. About the flood and the ark, it's not really relevant to the article anymore, but perhaps most of the dinosaurs couldn't fit on the ark, as it was 45 feet tall and had three decks? This would seem to be a contradiction to two of every kind of animal. I could be wrong. There's also sufficient time (1838 years) for them to die out between the time of creation and the flood. The bible doesn't say specifically. "This does not explain how 2 ancestral weevils could become 65,000+ species in under four thousand years." Who said anything about weevils? We know that there was a raven and a dove on the ark, because it specifically mentions them in Gen 8:6-12. It splits them into categories of "every wild animal, all livestock, every creature that moves along the ground, and every bird. I do not believe livestock are weevils.

As for the new explanation, it makes sense now, but I still don't see how new DNA is being added. The DNA is already there (A was already there) so the gene changing sequence B back into sequence A isn't adding new DNA, that sequence already existed. "if a human had such a mutation, it would be almost certainly considered a loss of information by any creationist." Guanine (sp?) replaced Adenine. It wasn't a deletion, it was a substitution. Deletions don't occur. They just don't. Therefore the same amount of DNA is still there. So really there isn't any less DNA. So isn't that argument a bit invalid? Or am I missing something? 26 September 2007

Both deletions and additions certainly do occur, so that you are misunderstanding. As for the amount of DNA, that doesn't really matter to creationists - the information content matters. After all, I could write a book of a million repetitions of the words "My name is Doddy" and it won't contain as much information as this paragraph of ~120 words. However, what I think you sensing is that information has reverted to the original. In a sense, it is like fixing a spelling error. However, if you do acknowledge that mutations can in fact fix errors, does it not follow that they can make a sentence better - they can increase 'information' content? There is no biochemical reason why a mutation can't make a protein better.--Doddy 04:25, 27 September 2007 (BST)

The Bible is not a reliable source of information about Biology, Geology or Paleontology, AT ALL. If the dinosaurs couldn't fit onto the Ark, then that means Noah was an incompetent. Furthermore, the Bible also mentioned that "creeping things" were brought onto the Ark. The Bible can not explain the geography of biodiversity AT ALL. If the Bible is so reliable, then how does it explain how koalas, wombats, kangaroos and snake lizards were able to reach Australia before tigers, gazelles and chameleons? Furthermore, if you actually had an elementary grasp of modern genetics, you would realize that a substitution mutation results in a change in information BECAUSE IT CAN CHANGE THE FUNCTION OF THE RESULTANT PROTEIN. If you actually knew about Genetics, you would realize that there really are [1] deletion mutations, and that a substitution mutation resulting in the changing of the information of that gene STILL CHANGES THE FUNCTION OF THE RESULTING PROTEIN. The mutated hemoglobin gene that causes Sickle Cell Anemia is equal in length as the normal hemoglobin, the only difference being that the hydrophilic amino acid glutamic acid is replaced by the hydrophobic amino acid valine, which alters the behavior of the protein dramatically. Then there are the documentation of the evolution of new genes, such as the anti-freeze gene in [2] Antarctic Icefish, and three different forms of nylonase in three difference bacteria strains, and the rise of [3] radiotrophic fungi. So, to answer your question, yes, you are missing something, you are missing a basic education in Biology, Genetics and Biochemistry. Would it be at all possible if you could actually try learning about Biology before you go accusing it of being a religion?--Mr A. 04:50, 27 September 2007 (BST)