Give your one best shot - against evolution

This information argument never ceases to amaze me. Under the Creationist scenario:1. 2 people, starting 6-10,000 years ago, give rise to a worldwide population of over 6 billion people of incredible variety.
2. 2 wolf-like animals walked off an ark 4,000 years ago and gave rise to wolves, coyotes, an incredible variety of dogs, etc.What do both of these examples have in common? Both would fall under the no new information created domain. That’s right, we now have Chinese, Germans, Indians, Nigerians, Arabs, Native Americans, etc., all hypothetically derived from a founding population of 2, and no new information was created in the process. Once there were few alleles, now there are many. Yet there was no increase in information. As I have said before, evolution is able to proceed nicely under this Creationist definition of information.FKP.S. Mr. Williams, I hope you get a chance to respond to the guest book entry I left for you at your web site.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
STRAWMAN ALERT!!!

​

LOL! So, do you think that evolution is able to proceed nicely via harmful mutations only? Please do not avoid this question. Answer it directly. Then perhaps you will see the speciousness of your logic above.

​

[Note: I think Fedmahn's strawman is the most common one I see erected by evos]

---

What you wrote does not logically follow from what I wrote. Your point is that information can't increase, or if so it would be rare for this to happen naturally in an organism. My point is that even under the Creationist model, we have gone from few alleles to many. This is your position, is it not? If so, then there is no strawman. If you still believe that a strawman has been erected you will have to be more explicit in explaining how I have misrepresented your position.Are you trying to say that all of the new alleles that have arisen are harmful? The fact is that if you grant that new alleles have arisen, then you grant that evolution can occur whether or not you define it as an increase or decrease of information. Others have pointed this out as well.FK

If you take a computer program, copy it, and modify it so that now you have a slightly altered version that performs a slightly different function, then how is this not new information?The ancestor to corn looks nothing like the corn we have today. Over the centuries, it has been developed into the varieties that we are now familiar with. According to you, there was no gain in information.Brussels sprouts, broccoli, cauliflower, (and I believe a few other plants) were all developed from a common ancestor in the cabbage family. Again, no new information according to you.New alleles for producing different eye color, hair color, skin color, etc. have all arisen in humans, even under the Creationist model. Yet there was no new information created according to you.As I stated previously, under your definition of information theory, evolution can proceed fine without producing new information. You grant that new alleles are produced, yet you refuse to call them new information. Fine. Then information theory as you have defined it is completely irrelevant when applied to the question of evolution.You charged previously that I had erected a straw man with this issue, but you still have not explained how.FK