Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Evolution objection, no new information

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 4:51:32 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
There is a common argument I see against evolution that goes something like this, Mutations don't produce new/more "information" ergo evolution is false.

So what is imagined is that if you start out with a few cells or what ever then fast forward a few billion years to say a human, it is impossible for the human to have it's predecessor in something that did not have eyes or lungs or heart because the information did not exist for those things in the DNA nor could this information be created even through a series of many small steps.

So what is the counter to this ? or should we all become creationists or at least non evolutionists.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
RainbowDash52
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 5:29:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 4:51:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There is a common argument I see against evolution that goes something like this, Mutations don't produce new/more "information" ergo evolution is false.

So what is imagined is that if you start out with a few cells or what ever then fast forward a few billion years to say a human, it is impossible for the human to have it's predecessor in something that did not have eyes or lungs or heart because the information did not exist for those things in the DNA nor could this information be created even through a series of many small steps.

So what is the counter to this ? or should we all become creationists or at least non evolutionists.

The counter I've heard is that if it is not explicitly stated in a peer reviewed biological journal, then it doesn't count.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 5:32:12 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 4:51:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There is a common argument I see against evolution that goes something like this, Mutations don't produce new/more "information" ergo evolution is false.

So what is imagined is that if you start out with a few cells or what ever then fast forward a few billion years to say a human, it is impossible for the human to have it's predecessor in something that did not have eyes or lungs or heart because the information did not exist for those things in the DNA nor could this information be created even through a series of many small steps.

So what is the counter to this ? or should we all become creationists or at least non evolutionists.

First, you have to get the creationist to not define information in such a way that it requires intelligence in order to be produced. This is the most common issue I see: information is created by intelligence, mutation/natural selection isn't intelligent, therefore it can't produce information.

If you can get that resolved, then you can present any number of studies observing the duplication and augmentation of DNA such that new genes emerge. The nylonase gene is a clear example of this.

It's that first bit, a definition of information that doesn't assume intelligence, that is the tough part.
chucklehead
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 5:36:17 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 4:51:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There is a common argument I see against evolution that goes something like this, Mutations don't produce new/more "information" ergo evolution is false.

So what is imagined is that if you start out with a few cells or what ever then fast forward a few billion years to say a human, it is impossible for the human to have it's predecessor in something that did not have eyes or lungs or heart because the information did not exist for those things in the DNA nor could this information be created even through a series of many small steps.

So what is the counter to this ? or should we all become creationists or at least non evolutionists.
post a picture of a grey wolf .. then post a few thousand breeds of dog ...lol
really though , take a look at the wide variety of pigeons all bred from singular bloodlines .... some reaching around 4 lbs , feathered feet , various extremes in shapes , colors never before witnessed in the species ... if we say its recessive genes , that makes our case for us , if we say its mutation , again , makes our case .
I urge anyone studying evolutionary theory to take a long hard look at the variety of traits in modern show/competition pigeons .
I hope this helps .
one love , God bless
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 5:38:31 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 5:36:17 AM, chucklehead wrote:
At 1/21/2016 4:51:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There is a common argument I see against evolution that goes something like this, Mutations don't produce new/more "information" ergo evolution is false.

So what is imagined is that if you start out with a few cells or what ever then fast forward a few billion years to say a human, it is impossible for the human to have it's predecessor in something that did not have eyes or lungs or heart because the information did not exist for those things in the DNA nor could this information be created even through a series of many small steps.

So what is the counter to this ? or should we all become creationists or at least non evolutionists.
post a picture of a grey wolf .. then post a few thousand breeds of dog ...lol
really though , take a look at the wide variety of pigeons all bred from singular bloodlines .... some reaching around 4 lbs , feathered feet , various extremes in shapes , colors never before witnessed in the species ... if we say its recessive genes , that makes our case for us , if we say its mutation , again , makes our case .
I urge anyone studying evolutionary theory to take a long hard look at the variety of traits in modern show/competition pigeons .
I hope this helps .
one love , God bless

They will just say that information already pre-existed in the grey wolf or pigeon to allow that.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
chucklehead
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 5:53:21 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 5:38:31 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/21/2016 5:36:17 AM, chucklehead wrote:
At 1/21/2016 4:51:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There is a common argument I see against evolution that goes something like this, Mutations don't produce new/more "information" ergo evolution is false.

So what is imagined is that if you start out with a few cells or what ever then fast forward a few billion years to say a human, it is impossible for the human to have it's predecessor in something that did not have eyes or lungs or heart because the information did not exist for those things in the DNA nor could this information be created even through a series of many small steps.

So what is the counter to this ? or should we all become creationists or at least non evolutionists.
post a picture of a grey wolf .. then post a few thousand breeds of dog ...lol
really though , take a look at the wide variety of pigeons all bred from singular bloodlines .... some reaching around 4 lbs , feathered feet , various extremes in shapes , colors never before witnessed in the species ... if we say its recessive genes , that makes our case for us , if we say its mutation , again , makes our case .
I urge anyone studying evolutionary theory to take a long hard look at the variety of traits in modern show/competition pigeons .
I hope this helps .
one love , God bless

They will just say that information already pre-existed in the grey wolf or pigeon to allow that.

why would features never visible in the common pigeon be in the genetic lineage ?
don't you see it yet ? they are making your case for you ...
why would a pigeon "fowl of the air " have in its genetic code to never fly , or roll on the ground ONLY , or feathers so long on the feet as to be nearly a second set of wings ? none of these traits are beneficial to the survival of the common pigeon ..
really , google image " show pigeons " if you cant show mutation resulting in new genetic information with pigeons , im not sure what could .
chucklehead
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 6:48:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
let me put it this way , if there is no new information , where did all those recessive genes come from to start with?why did they become recessive ?where are they in the fossil record ?
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 1:39:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 4:51:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There is a common argument I see against evolution that goes something like this, Mutations don't produce new/more "information" ergo evolution is false.

So what is imagined is that if you start out with a few cells or what ever then fast forward a few billion years to say a human, it is impossible for the human to have it's predecessor in something that did not have eyes or lungs or heart because the information did not exist for those things in the DNA nor could this information be created even through a series of many small steps.

So what is the counter to this ? or should we all become creationists or at least non evolutionists.

Is there a law that says information is conserved. I am not aware of any such thing.

Semantic Information is the human abstraction of properties measured in the real world. We create information when we do the measurement but the properties that we measure already exist. Those properties can change without our permission.

Genetic mutations are not magically controlled by our knowledge of the mutation. The mutation is not restricted by information theory. Mutations occur irrespective of what the outcome is.

To be more specific: Lets say that GTAACTC represents a section of DNA that codes for a gene. Let us further assume that GTAACTA is the code for a better version of that gene. It is perfectly possible that random mutation could cause the second DNA section to be created in an offspring.* How would any laws about information stop this happening? There is no causal link between information and genetic mutation.

Information is an abstraction. Abstractions do not control reality. Reality determines abstract information.

Put it another way. If I don't know the name of 99.999999% of the world population does that mean they cease to exist?

* (Obviously random mutation is more likely to create a non-beneficial version, but that is where natural selection comes in.)
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 7:21:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 4:51:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There is a common argument I see against evolution that goes something like this, Mutations don't produce new/more "information" ergo evolution is false.

You could argue that mutations don't produce more information. It's just that the information that exists takes new forms. If you don't think these new forms of information should be considered different from the previous forms, then yes, there is no new information being produced.

I don't see how that results in evolution being false.


So what is imagined is that if you start out with a few cells or what ever then fast forward a few billion years to say a human, it is impossible for the human to have it's predecessor in something that did not have eyes or lungs or heart because the information did not exist for those things in the DNA nor could this information be created even through a series of many small steps.

If we're viewing this from the lens of "all this information already exists, but takes different forms," then that's not true. It seems like a sudden switch in viewpoint has happened in order to suite the needs of their beliefs.

I don't know if I've articulated my thoughts properly, but perhaps you can see what I'm getting at. I'm being a little vague because the way information is defined usually varies.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2016 8:47:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 4:51:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There is a common argument I see against evolution that goes something like this, Mutations don't produce new/more "information" ergo evolution is false.

So what is imagined is that if you start out with a few cells or what ever then fast forward a few billion years to say a human, it is impossible for the human to have it's predecessor in something that did not have eyes or lungs or heart because the information did not exist for those things in the DNA nor could this information be created even through a series of many small steps.

So what is the counter to this ? or should we all become creationists or at least non evolutionists.

The counter to this is obviously that mutations DO create new information.
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 6:07:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/21/2016 4:51:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There is a common argument I see against evolution that goes something like this, Mutations don't produce new/more "information" ergo evolution is false.

So what is imagined is that if you start out with a few cells or what ever then fast forward a few billion years to say a human, it is impossible for the human to have it's predecessor in something that did not have eyes or lungs or heart because the information did not exist for those things in the DNA nor could this information be created even through a series of many small steps.

So what is the counter to this ? or should we all become creationists or at least non evolutionists.

Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA, which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV. Here, a single mutation has resulted in a new protein with a new and potentially vital function. New protein, new function, new information.
http://journals.plos.org...

A strain of e-coli evolving the ability to digest citrate through mutation.
http://www.pnas.org...

Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Bacteria evolved the ability to digest nylon through a mutation. Scientists have been able to get other bacteria to do the same.
http://jb.asm.org...
http://aem.asm.org...
http://www.sciencedirect.com...

There are many more examples:
http://bigthink.com...
http://www.gate.net...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...