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
- Login to post comments
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.
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.
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
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
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!
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
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
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com
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
Well put, but creationists would almost certainly try to counter this with some combination of:
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.
try this
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CF200