I was looking this up, and you may wish to know that there's three pigments associated with coloration of skin: hemoglobin, carotene, and melanin.
Obviously hemoglobin, the red pigment of blood, is responsible for the pinkish color of light skin. Carotene is the dominant pigment only in pathological situations, and is yellow-orange in color.
Melanin is actually two different pigments; pheomelanin (yellow-red in color) and eumelanin (the more familiar brown-black color). The ratios of these pigments would explain how persons from different regions differ in hue and not just tint.
So I'm not sure your statement is accurate. It's like saying that paint has no color - it only has different amounts of different pigments. Technically true, but not what most people would mean by "having color."
Anyway, just thought I would chime in with that.
Oh, and the rest of it - your argument, over and over, just seems to be that if a sequence is changed, the fact that it's different than it was before represents a loss of "specified complexity", whatever that is.
That's not an argument that I find compelling. I challenge you to identify a hypothetical change - in any situation or analogy you choose - that represents an increase in specified complexity. The way you've stacked the deck, that's impossible. I'm not inclined to pay much attention to the "argument from a stacked deck."
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-09-2004 05:41 AM
It does, however, show the possibilty of one individual having the ability genetically to be the source of all variety of 'skin color' we see today.
Possibly. That person would be black, of course.
An increase of information would be for the fruit fly to grow a bee's stinger (or equivelent)
Ah, but see, you're already wrong.
Bee stingers develop from tissues that, in other insects, form ovipositors. (That's why it's only the female bees who sting.) So, in order for your fly to develop a stinger, it has to "lose" an ovipositor.
According to your definition, that's losing information and specificity.
or a grasshopper's jumping legs
That would require the loss of the regular legs, which would be a loss of specificity, right?
or a the ability to weave a web as a spider does.
Losing the ovipositor again, I suspect. Again a loss in specificity for the fly.
The evolutionist says 'see here is a transitional fossil'. The creationist, however, says 'I do not see any transition - I see a discreet fossil'.
Let me give a counter-example. I'm walking from my house to the store, and midway, a picture is taken.
The evolutionist says "here is Crash in transition to the store."
The creationist says "I don't see a transition; I see Crash in a discreet point in space. Where's the transition to that point in space?"
All transitionals are discreet fossils. How could they be otherwise? All evolution predicts is that we will find discreet, individual species that possess primitive or simpler versions of structures found in other species.
I find creationist definitions of "information" highly suspect, especially in regards to duplication.
On my computer, if I duplicate a 5 mb file, the computer tells me that there's another 5 mb of information there. Claude Shannon, the developer of information theory, tells me that there's another 5mb of information there. Everybody tells me there's more information there... except for creationists.
Now, I don't know anything about information, but as far as I can tell, whatever kind of "information" you're talking about has absoluetly nothing to do with biology. That's just common sense.
6. No information chain can exist without a mental origin. 7. No information can exist without an initial mental source; that is, information is, by its nature, a mental and not a material quantity. 8. No information can exist without a will.
If these are your axioms, then applying this to biology is a big excerise in circular reasoning:
"We assume that information denotes intelligence; DNA has information, therefore DNA is the product of intelligence."
The plasmids are designed (intended - or whatever you want to call it) to react in hard times for the bacteria, and adapt it to changing food sources and they did their designated function.
Then why didn't they all do it? If this adaptability is designed in, why isn't it universal? If adaptabilty is by design then why do so many organisms fail to adapt?
The answer, of course, is that adaptation is not a design feature of organisms, but a consequence of selection on populations. Individuals don't adapt. Populations do.