Hi dan4reason
from
Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments,
Message 136:
quote:
2. Information Loss
Another argument common to creationism and IDology is that mutations only result in the loss of "information", and that without a mechanism to gain "information" new systems, functions or features cannot evolve.
Let's review the logic of this argument:- (P1) mutations cannot cause an increase in "information."
- (P2) an increase in "information" is necessary for new mechanisms or functions to evolve.
- (C1) Therefore new mechanisms or functions cannot evolve.
Leaving aside the fact that "information" is not defined in any way to measure whether or not there is an increase or a decrease in any evolved changes in species over time, we can still show that the concept is falsified if we can show that ONE such mechanism or function has evolved that would require such an increase. In other words, if we can show that either (P1) or (P2) must be invalid then we have shown that the conclusion is invalid.
Now let's look at Barry Hall's experiments again in light of this concept:
An existing "irreducibly complex" system is intentionally disrupted and ceases to function.
According to the equation of new information with the evolution of new functions or mechanisms by precept (2), the intentional loss of a function or mechanism must then also involve the loss of AT LEAST SOME information for that function or mechanism:
quote:
In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose.
Thus the deletion of the beta-galactosidase gene MUST have involved the loss of AT LEAST SOME information for the function or mechanism of that gene.
Next what we see is that a DIFFERENT "IC" system evolves to replace the original -- the original "IC" system is not repaired or recovered, but a new and different "IC" system evolved.
Ergo new "information" MUST have evolved that was not in the original organism, the "information" for that organism MUST have been increased. Again, this is the principle of falsification used by science - it invalidates either precept (P1) or precept (P2), and therefore invalidates ALL conclusions based on their combination.
We started with a system with some quantity of "information" that -- according to precept (2) -- must have been lost to render it dysfunctional, and then a replacement system evolved.
Either "information" was added (invalidates precept (P1)) OR added "information" was not necessary for the evolution of a feature, function or system (invalidates precept (P2)).
Thus either precept (P1) OR precept (P2) is invalidated, falsified, refuted and ALL conclusions based on their combination are invalidated. Q.E.D.
Information was either added or the concept of information is irrelevant to what can or cannot evolve.
The proteins that were available once the beta-galactosidase gene was deleted were modified to permit the new galactose metabolism - it was not there before - and the rapid growth of the bacteria with this modification show selection.
Enjoy.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
