What creationists get right
- Thread starter GT WT
- Start date
Creed
100+ Posts
RB, I'm gonna give a shot at addressing this "new information" idea.
I'm going to start with your example. We'll say it starts with the protein sequence ABCD. Through a duplication, the offspring gets ABCD ABCD. Somewhere down the road, the second one turns into ABGD. That's certainly possible, right? A new protein might only need two amino acids to change places and change C into G. Well, now we have what I think everyone would have to agree is "new information," the genetic code for ABGD. Now this organism produces two proteins whereas in the past it produced only one. How is this not "new information?"
To think about it a different way, think about legos. Say that we have red, green, blue, and yellow legos. At first, the only thing someone makes is a simple RGBY. Now, imagine that the guys who work in this factory aren't very creative. All they can do is try their best to replicate the shape they see. Most of them do it right, making RGBY, but one of the guys screws up and makes RGRY. Like a game of telephone, the mistake is passed on to everyone who uses the RGRY as a model. By this method, the huge factory ends up with every possible combination of 4 legos. Now, they start hiring new people, and their quality goes down even further. Some of them start putting 4-lego sets together (which we know happens in biology). Well, now we have 8 lego sets constructed from all possible combinations of 4, so we have all of the possible 8 lego sets.
This example is exactly what happens in evolution. From it, you can see how, using only 4 basic building blocks and mistakes in replication/duplication, you can make anything else comprised of those 4 building blocks. For me, I guess, "new information" is simply not a relevant idea. If you're talking about using new amino acids for DNA, well, we don't see that, but if you're just talking about new proteins then I don't see why that isn't covered by my example above.
I'm going to start with your example. We'll say it starts with the protein sequence ABCD. Through a duplication, the offspring gets ABCD ABCD. Somewhere down the road, the second one turns into ABGD. That's certainly possible, right? A new protein might only need two amino acids to change places and change C into G. Well, now we have what I think everyone would have to agree is "new information," the genetic code for ABGD. Now this organism produces two proteins whereas in the past it produced only one. How is this not "new information?"
To think about it a different way, think about legos. Say that we have red, green, blue, and yellow legos. At first, the only thing someone makes is a simple RGBY. Now, imagine that the guys who work in this factory aren't very creative. All they can do is try their best to replicate the shape they see. Most of them do it right, making RGBY, but one of the guys screws up and makes RGRY. Like a game of telephone, the mistake is passed on to everyone who uses the RGRY as a model. By this method, the huge factory ends up with every possible combination of 4 legos. Now, they start hiring new people, and their quality goes down even further. Some of them start putting 4-lego sets together (which we know happens in biology). Well, now we have 8 lego sets constructed from all possible combinations of 4, so we have all of the possible 8 lego sets.
This example is exactly what happens in evolution. From it, you can see how, using only 4 basic building blocks and mistakes in replication/duplication, you can make anything else comprised of those 4 building blocks. For me, I guess, "new information" is simply not a relevant idea. If you're talking about using new amino acids for DNA, well, we don't see that, but if you're just talking about new proteins then I don't see why that isn't covered by my example above.
RockyBalboa
500+ Posts
Sorry guys, I'm only able to get on about once a week now. I just read through the responses, I'll respond back tomorrow evening (it's 1am now). If you guys feel like responding back after that, we'll continue.
RockyBalboa
500+ Posts
Sorry. Time has been more limited than I thought.
As far as the PZ Meyers article goes, I'm not sure how that's a gain in new genetic information. In one of the best known blind cave fish, Astyanax mexicanus, there is another reason why the blind fish can have an advantage in caves. This is pleiotropy, where a single gene has more than one effect on an organism. It turns out that a control gene, hedgehog, which affects a number of processes including development of the jaws and tastebuds, also inhibits another control gene, pax6, which controls development of the eyes. A fish with bigger jaws and more sensitive tastebuds would have an advantage in finding food, but this must be traded off with the loss of eye development. In the light, loss of eyes is a big disadvantage, so natural selection would eliminate a fish that over-expresses hedgehog, despite its better jaws and taste. But in the dark caves, a fish with highly expressed hedgehog would have a big advantage, since the loss of eyes would be irrelevant.
As far as the PZ Meyers article goes, I'm not sure how that's a gain in new genetic information. In one of the best known blind cave fish, Astyanax mexicanus, there is another reason why the blind fish can have an advantage in caves. This is pleiotropy, where a single gene has more than one effect on an organism. It turns out that a control gene, hedgehog, which affects a number of processes including development of the jaws and tastebuds, also inhibits another control gene, pax6, which controls development of the eyes. A fish with bigger jaws and more sensitive tastebuds would have an advantage in finding food, but this must be traded off with the loss of eye development. In the light, loss of eyes is a big disadvantage, so natural selection would eliminate a fish that over-expresses hedgehog, despite its better jaws and taste. But in the dark caves, a fish with highly expressed hedgehog would have a big advantage, since the loss of eyes would be irrelevant.
Rocky B,
New genetic information can arise through:
1) simple mutation
2) lateral gene transfer
3) chromosomal rearrangements (duplication is the most important for the present discussion but inversions and translocations can also change the genetic environment, placing genes in new environments).
4) changes in chromosome number.
Rocky, I don't think any arguments are going to sway you. You're convinced, despite all the evidence, that new genetic information is impossible. You believe that the human genome is so complex that the only possible explanation is magic (i.e., God-did-it). Well, I can't prove God didn't do it. So be happy with your beliefs. Just don't try to teach your magic as science in public school classrooms.
New genetic information can arise through:
1) simple mutation
2) lateral gene transfer
3) chromosomal rearrangements (duplication is the most important for the present discussion but inversions and translocations can also change the genetic environment, placing genes in new environments).
4) changes in chromosome number.
Rocky, I don't think any arguments are going to sway you. You're convinced, despite all the evidence, that new genetic information is impossible. You believe that the human genome is so complex that the only possible explanation is magic (i.e., God-did-it). Well, I can't prove God didn't do it. So be happy with your beliefs. Just don't try to teach your magic as science in public school classrooms.
Creed
100+ Posts
RB, I'm not sure you understood my lego example. The legos were the nucleobases. DNA only uses 4. That's true no matter how complex the genome of an organism. They never go away, and when you put them together in a new way (through mutations/duplication) you can create DNA that codes for a new protein. This whole "new information" argument seems to rely on the reader not understanding that, for all the complexity of DNA, it's basically made up of 4 little legos in a bunch of different combinations.
You reveal that thinking yourself with your letter example. You give yourself more letters than the 4 that DNA has, and yet you can make all of the "words" needed for DNA with just those four nucleobases. You don't need new building blocks to go from bacteria to humans, you just need more of them in new combinations. Please, if I've misunderstood your white block/letters example, let me know, but the way it reads right now is as if you don't understand that the RGBY legos were actually adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. They aren't the resulting genes, they're the building blocks.
Your argument is akin to someone saying that no one can ever write a new book, because all they're doing is rearranging words that already exist. Therefore, it's not really new. Everyone knows that makes absolutely no sense.
You reveal that thinking yourself with your letter example. You give yourself more letters than the 4 that DNA has, and yet you can make all of the "words" needed for DNA with just those four nucleobases. You don't need new building blocks to go from bacteria to humans, you just need more of them in new combinations. Please, if I've misunderstood your white block/letters example, let me know, but the way it reads right now is as if you don't understand that the RGBY legos were actually adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. They aren't the resulting genes, they're the building blocks.
Your argument is akin to someone saying that no one can ever write a new book, because all they're doing is rearranging words that already exist. Therefore, it's not really new. Everyone knows that makes absolutely no sense.
Recent Threads
-
Controversial opinions
- Started by Driver 8
- Replies: 675
- Quackenbush's
-
The Bible was created by man
- Started by Crockett
- Replies: 90
- Quackenbush's
-
Random ignorant comments
- Started by Chop
- Replies: 3
- Quackenbush's
-
Happy Mother’s Day
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 6
- Quackenbush's
-
Reflections on Reaching Age 80
- Started by HornHuskerDad
- Replies: 14
- Quackenbush's
-
Eclipse 2024
- Started by Dionysus
- Replies: 36
- Quackenbush's
-
PSA
- Started by SabreHorn
- Replies: 12
- Quackenbush's
Prediction Results Threads
