Hi, Subbie.
subbie writes:
Obviously the total "genetic information" in the population will increase...
I agree with you on this perspective, and I've used this argument before too. But, thinking about it now, I don't know this is really a useful argument, since, on the population scale, a mutation is essentially
defined as an increase in information. Obviously, this isn't what creationists object to at all.
I think, in order to get at what creationists object to, you have to show an information increase in relation to the same gene before it mutated. But, then you get all the definition problems about what counts as "more" or "less" information.
The best way to deal with this mess is what Dr A and Percy did: a demonstration that the objection is invalid no matter how you define "information."
The only way to defeat their argument is to imply some sort of mechanism that assesses whether a "proposed" mutation will add or subtract information, and forbids those that will add, but this idea seems stupid.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
