One common line I hear from those who oppose evolution is that mutation does not increase information but only decreases information. It seems to me that if a gene duplicates, one or the other now has the ability to mutate with out killing the organism because the other gene will still fullfill the original role. If this mutation actually begins to produce a different protein, it may or may not be selected against. At this point, we have "more" information (two proteins instead of one). But look at this article from Answers in Genesis.
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
Let me highlight one particular part.
No mechanism is provided for how the photosystems came into existence, just that “these genes arose” for one photosystem. It is then proposed that a “simple duplication” of the genes encoding one photosystem occurred, followed by mutation leading to the formation of another photosystem. What is needed is new information to form another photosystem, not duplication of already present genes followed by mutation. This will only lead to the loss of information
The improbability of this is enormous considering that mutations and natural selection, which decrease genetic information, are the only mechanisms that evolution can use.
This author seems to refer to my understanding (duplicatation followed by mutation) but says this itself leads to loss of information. I was tempted to think this was just someone who didn't understand pushing the party line until I got to the end.
Dr. Georgia Purdom earned her doctorate from Ohio State University in molecular genetics and spent six years as a professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Purdom is also a member of the American Society for Microbiology and American Society for Cell Biology.
This woman has a PhD. from a real university in MOLECULAR GENETICS. You can't get any more relevant than that. Obviously, she knows a heck of a lot more about this than I do. So what gives? Does mutation and natural selection only decrease information? What is being defined as information here? Can someone point to a good article online that discusses this creationist critique. I would like to hear from both evolutionists and creationists on the matter.
™ Version 4.2