Hi Arithus,
"Information does not have to be increased for the mutation to be beneficial. It has to be increased for the theory of evolution to be plausible."
How does a series of mutations, therefore, that produce a new structure or function not contain new information?
This seems to me to be creationists trying to have their cake & eat it. They want to preserve new information for god alone, but exclude new information that arises by natural processes from being information at all. In other words, creationists want any protein created by god to have new information by definition, but the same protein arrived at by natural selection isn't possessing information.
Presumably, they then get to say, "hey! DNA contains new information, it is therefore god's work".
What they fail to recognise is that we know proteins with new function arise by natural processes, which opens up the prospect that DNA, by their definition, contains no information at all.
This gambit is used all the time with such tactics as "information has a sender", DNA has information, therefore it has a sender, that sender is god. Of course, this obviously means that if we cannot show that a sender exists, then DNA contains no information at all by that definition.
There is a fish in the depths of the ocean where the waters are so inky dark that the fish is unable to see. It often swims into the jagged rocky sea bottom in search of food and the rocks cut its eyes and causes infections and sometimes death. The fish has offspring that have eyelids welded shut. The fish now has a barrier between its eyes and the deadly rock. Evolution? Many scientists use it as an example of it...
But was there new information given to the fish to secure its survival? The answer of course is no.
The answer is of course, yes!
Welded eyelids are new structures defined by new information that didn't previously exist. It matters not a jot that information is lost elsewhere. New information
is evident.
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't