Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dave G on February 8, 2012 at 6:28pm

A good example is the baccteria that evolved the ability to digest nylon. As nylon is a synthetic material that didn't exist prior to 1935, the ability to digest it is a new ability that didn't exist perviously.

Of course, given the false assumption (mutations cannot generate new genetic code) your friend subscribes to, they may not accept any answer other than "Oh wow, I guess God Did It"

You might try this example of how new genetic information can arise from existing code. Take the first 200 words in a dictionary. Not the definitions, just the words. You can take the letters making up those words and mutate them (change a letter or two) and end up with words that are nott contained within those initial 200. For example, the word 'air' could mutate into 'fir'.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Little on February 8, 2012 at 7:06pm

It is so hard for me to have a debate/conversation with people that believe in Creationism. The idea of a mythological belief system is so ridiculous to me now, that the "Creation" question always turns into a debate on Theism. It would be like if I ran across someone who believed in the Tooth Fairy and tried to use science to justify "her/his" existence. The Tooth Fairy does not exist, and so, to try to use science to either prove or disprove its existence, I wouldn't even know where to begin. But I DO like Dave G's analogy!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 8, 2012 at 7:14pm

On my reading, they appear to me making two assertions.

The first is that evolution can't produce new information.

But the second seems to be that, even if it could produce new information, mutations can only act on what is already there, and that evolution doesn't explain where this already existing material came from.

In reverse order:

It's not a knock against evolution to say that evolution doesn't explain where the first molecules on which selection could act came from. Evolution doesn't do ever claim to provide an explanation for this. To suggest that this is a failure is no different than saying that quantum mechanics doesn't provide an explanation for where these first molecules came from. Quantum mechanics is intended to explain where those first molecules came from in the same way that evolution is intended to... not at all.

BUT, that's not to say that we don't have very plausible answers for how complex molecules on which selection could act, thereby creating still more complex molecules that could self replicate and eventually be capable of metabolism etc., eventually creating what we'd recognize as simple unicellular organisms. Abiogenesis is the name for the group of hypotheses that come from biochemistry and seek to explain how life came from non-life, to explain where the material upon which selection could initially act came from.

Now, the second assertion is of the same type as when Creationists say that there are no transitional fossils: they either are ignorant of their existence or choose to willfully ignore the fact that they exist, having been shown many examples of them repeatedly by those that have no ideological bias that prevents them from accepting evolution. As the philosopher of science Maarten Boudry has pointed out, the criterion of complex specified information is simply a very bad filter for detecting design, because it singles out biological phenomena that present no problem whatsoever for standard evolutionary explanations.

TalkOrigins, in their Index to Creationist Claims has a couple of entries on this here and here. Not only can new genes arise, they can arise quite quickly.

But the bigger problem is the whole notion of "information" as it is understood within Creationist circles. William Dembski is largely responsible for these assertions about information (complex specified information, to use his specific name). About Dembski's work on this subject, Mark Perakh points out the problem when he highlights Dembski's habit of switching back and forth between the technical mathematical definition of "information" (as elucidated by C.E. Shannon), which is just a measure of randomness (and therefore insignificant), and the common understanding of information as "meaningful message." (Perakh 2004, as sited by Boudry. Here's Perakh on Dembski Also see Boudry's papers here)

So even if some understanding of information was a problem for evolution, information as understood by Creationists while attacking evolution is muddled and poorly formed as an idea that they themselves can't seem to nail down. As such, this doesn't present a problem for evolution at all. And that's again only for the sake of argument since new information is "created" by evolution all the time!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Travis Anderson on February 8, 2012 at 7:25pm

This irks me. People who have just enough knowledge to be annoying with these questions that would be answered in 9th grade biology class.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Karp on February 8, 2012 at 7:27pm

Try this; "I'm not a scientist, but so much of the overwhelming majority of the scientific world has accepted the theory of evolution, that is is widely acccepted as fact. In terms of Natural Seclection, again enough scientists have accepted this theory that I also accept this as the current leading theory. If annother, SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE hypotheis, that is able to be thoroughly PEER REVIEWED, appears and is accepted by the majority of the scientific community, I will change my view. However, the vast majority of scientists, the courts and academia agree creation theory, which is not testable, and intelligent design, IS NOT SCIENCE! So there is point in trying to talk me into believing an idea that has NO SCIENTIFIC MERIT in the eyes of the world!"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Artor on February 8, 2012 at 8:47pm

Unfortunately, the ID crowd will interpret that line as just another appeal to an arbitrary authority. They don't understand what science is, so explaining that scientists have reached a consensus sounds to them just like millions of ignorant Xtians have reached a consensus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Karp on February 8, 2012 at 10:24pm

Yes but trying to reason with a lunatic is lunacy. So I will say that and walk away.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Morgan Matthew on February 8, 2012 at 8:41pm

This video sums it up nice and neatly for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrNKFzXznVU&feature=youtube_gdat...

Also a good video with a good quick question that you may ask him to see if the discussion is worth your time and energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb2u1P9s-YU&feature=youtube_gdat...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Artor on February 8, 2012 at 8:45pm

A mutation IS new genetic information. Genes are not single, discreet units. They are made up of a sequence of amino acids. If any of those acids are out of order, or swapped with another, that makes an entirely new gene, which might kill the creature, might be irrelevant, like hair color, or might give it an edge in reproducing, thus propagating the new sequence on to future generations.

Also, we now know that genes can be swapped from one organism to another. When you get a virus, it injects it's dna into your cells to reproduce more viruses. Some of that dna can combine with yours, thus altering your  genetic code. What that gene does in a virus could be quite different from what it does in your body.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BryanPaul on February 8, 2012 at 9:56pm

People get hung up on this deal about new information. The truth is, new information isn't really needed. Look into fruit fly research. They can get rid of wing, change colors, and multiple other things simply by turning genes on or off. A lot of information is already there. It is simply recessive or turned off. Whales have hips and manatees have three toe nails on there from flippers. Why hips or toe nails on sea creatures that have no back legs or toes? They once walked on land obviously. Enough changes will make DNA non compatible over time with the original because of genetic changes. People that deny this either are to....dim or they are lying to themselves. You can't change there mind because they will deny the truth, even when it's in there face. Ask him about the whale and manatee. I bet they say " it's god design."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Cavanaugh on February 8, 2012 at 11:25pm

If I understand correctly they are talking about not evolution of current or even past organisms but the arising of new life or radically new types of life in living creatures. If this is the case then just respond that A) evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life and doesn't even address that and B) even if it did then the reason new life has not come about like the life we see evoked around us now is because the conditions that allowed for the origins of life are no longer present on the earth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ryan Todd Robinson on February 9, 2012 at 1:00am

The inherent problem in this specific argument is the notion of 'new information.'  As has been pointed out, information in this instance is coming from arguments by Dembski, and ultimately it (in my view) steers the conversation towards the inevitable goal of information = design.  Other problems arise that anything you get that answers the question being posed, is that they will either not understand, or ignore what you present.  You could talk about polyploidy, which doubles (or triples, etc) the genetic information, which just by itself can lead to speciation (which is what many creationists call 'macroevolution').  You can see that in many plants, like dandelions.  However this won't satisfy the question as its a doubling (or more) of the information that is already there, and would be dismissed as not introducing 'new' genetic information. Dave G's suggestion of bacteria digesting nylon is an excellent example, but more than likely it will be ignored as well (having had this same conversation myself with a creationist).

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page