Natural selection according to www.answersingenesis.org

elmo
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-07-22
User is offlineOffline
Natural selection according to www.answersingenesis.org

I was just wondering if anyone can help me find a rebuttal to the arguments presented in on this page. Specifically the argument for natural selection not creating new information.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution

 


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
WOW

WOW

 

I wouldn't even know where to start. These guys are amazing. It always fascinates me to see how much they try to rationalize their belief to make it more or less fit with science.

Quote:
No, you seem to be confusing the terms “evolution” and “natural selection.”

And you can really see that they refuse to understand. It's not that they don't understand what evolution is, but they deliberately refuse to understand it. I don't see how you can argue with people like that.

 

Quote:
Could this process cause the increase in genetic information necessary for molecules-to-man evolution?

 Here they are again, invoking their favorite kind of God. The fucking God of the Gaps. "We don't know, therefor God did it." I can't stand that !

 

 

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


Girl Dancing In...
Girl Dancing In Orbit's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-12-27
User is offlineOffline
elmo wrote: Specifically

elmo wrote:

Specifically the argument for natural selection not creating new information.

Well, Polydactyly seems to be a mutation that increases information if you ask me.

 

Si Dieu existe, c'est Son problème !
If God exists, it's His problem !--Graffiti on the walls of the Sorbonne (France), May 1968
romancedlife.blogspot.com


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
There are many errors in

There are many errors in their article, but I shall not bother with those. They are essentially right about natural selection not producing new information though. One can think of evolution as a computer program. Suppose we supply the program with a chunk of code for a website. This program would call the modify() function to create many copies of the code but with slight changes. Codelet one may have a line commented out, meaning the line is still in the code but it doesn't execute any longer. Codelet two may have a new line of code added. Codelets three and four might have some code replaced where three executes faster but four executes slower. Once this generation is born and tested, our computer program calls the delete() function and removes codelet four because it didn't execute quickly enough to survive and removes codelet one because it didn't execute at all, leaving codelets two and three. The program would then call the modify() function again, then delete(), then modify(), then delete(), and so on. The delete() function would be natural selection in this analogy. Mutations would be the cause of the codelet changes. New or additional information might be added by mutations, by the modify() function, but no information is added when you call the delete() function, when objects are selected.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
elmo wrote: I was just

elmo wrote:

I was just wondering if anyone can help me find a rebuttal to the arguments presented in on this page. Specifically the argument for natural selection not creating new information.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-natural-selection-evolution

 

Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/ .

You can find basic refutations of pretty much all that crap with sources and references to foolow through on.

-Triften 


Switch89
Posts: 67
Joined: 2007-09-13
User is offlineOffline
Here is how random mutation

Here is how random mutation can create new information:

Insertion Mutations - Nucleotides being added to a genetic sequence. This can totally change the gene, as is demonstrated by the Nylon bug. (Google Nylon bug for more info).

 De Novo Gene Origination - Extra copies of genes and such becoming "junk" DNA. Since there is no seletive pressure for what happens to "junk" DNA, these genes can be mutated beyond recognition. This provides a lot of raw genetic material to work with:

 

Gene Duplication - Genes becoming copied and then used for a new function.

 

See Question 2 here:

http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/evolution-for-creationists-part-four.html


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Switch89's answer is the

Switch89's answer is the correct one.  But it won't actually work against a creationist because they have been coached to respond "that's not new information--that's just the same information rearranged in a different way."

The whole "no new information" argument is a stacked deck.  The creationists have defined "information" in such a way that the conditions for "new information" can never be fulfilled by any known evolutionary process.  The argument itself is based on a misreading and misapplication of information theory--but the misuse is buried in the middle of some very complicated stuff and beyond the understanding of most creationists.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Switch89 wrote: Here is

Switch89 wrote:

Here is how random mutation can create new information:

Insertion Mutations - Nucleotides being added to a genetic sequence. This can totally change the gene, as is demonstrated by the Nylon bug. (Google Nylon bug for more info).

 De Novo Gene Origination - Extra copies of genes and such becoming "junk" DNA. Since there is no seletive pressure for what happens to "junk" DNA, these genes can be mutated beyond recognition. This provides a lot of raw genetic material to work with:

 

Gene Duplication - Genes becoming copied and then used for a new function.

 

Well put, but creationists would almost certainly try to counter this with some combination of:

  • Appeal to Authority ("my priest says you're wrong" )
  • Arguement from Ignorance ("I dunno, therefore God did it" )
  • Red Herring (specifically, Arguement From Shiny Objects)

It's just a fact of life that some people are dumb as rocks. I only wish there weren't so many of them in Washington.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


bluescat48
bluescat48's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline