Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
146 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK (2 members, 144 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,836 Year: 1,584/23,288 Month: 1,584/1,851 Week: 224/484 Day: 0/42 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No "new information" required
Taq
Member
Posts: 8218
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 9 of 20 (661727)
05-09-2012 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Wounded King
05-07-2012 5:26 AM


Re: No takers?
There does seem to be an annoying trend amongst some IDists/Creationists to continually divorce actual real biological function from their preferred abstract 'measures' of information.

They seem only to be ready to consider mutations as beneficial if they satisfy some indefinite criteria for increasing 'information' rather than if they actually confer improved fitness on the organism in which they occur.

I have noticed this as well. They are trying so hard to disprove evolution that they lose sight of reality and fail to explain biology. What happens is that they define "new information" so that evolution can not produce it, but they fail to recognize that evolution doesn't need to produce this "new information" in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. I think it could even be argued that evolution actually requires a loss of information as defined by ID/creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 05-07-2012 5:26 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by gaxar77, posted 06-03-2012 10:35 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8218
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.4


(4)
Message 18 of 20 (664705)
06-04-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by gaxar77
06-03-2012 10:35 PM


Re: No takers?
I don't see what you mean when you see that creationists define information deliberately so that it cannot be increased through random mutations. The definition of information that they use, at least from what I have read, is the same definition given by information science.

Actually, it isn't. They make up their own definitions, such as Complex Specified Information.

The changing of a bird's beak or wing-shape, to make it more apt at doing one thing may be beneficial, but it does not require any new information, and thus cannot be used as an example of evolution.

This is exactly what I am talking about. If this is not an example of new information then evolution does not need to produce new information in order to produce the biodiversity we see today.

The new information needed by evolution can only come by incremental steps, and there is no example whatsoever of any new information being added to DNA that benefits it.

That is exactly what you described with the bird's beak and wing, and yet you say that is not new information.

Even if you say that evolution does not require an increase in complexity, but can also be characterized by a decrease, that still doesn't explain how the increase occurs by means of that same evolution.

It occurs through mutation and selection. Whether or not creationists want to call this "new information" has little to do with the reality that evolution does occur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by gaxar77, posted 06-03-2012 10:35 PM gaxar77 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020