IanC

edit - whoops, completely misread your post, flashbaby. I missed the word "non" and thought we were going to get into a debate about information. Sorry.

Edit - Ah, so Valz is.

Genetic material can increase in size very easily (insertion mutation, gene duplication, etc). How are you defining the quality of information, and information for that matter?

This is easily countered because if you have 2 sequences of DNA:
GATTCA
GATTACA

Let us say that the second is thought to be of "higher quality". An insertion mutation could insert the extra A into the first. Hey presto - an increase.

But what if the first was of higher quality? No problem, a deletion mutation of the A would deal with that. Again, an increase.

If there are any 2 sequences that have differing levels of "quality" or "information" then mutations could convert either one into the other. If you don't see how, post two sequences for me and tell me which has more information. I'll do the rest


Ian

Dhaeron

Balance is overrated. Facts aren't balanced.
That it's the usual creationist bullshit.

So they are complaining that a) new species are not really new but only newly discovered. A valid criticism for those species where that actually is the case, however no biologist would claim that hose are new species so that's a strawman. b) that the new species are somehow lacking in "newness" Aka no true scotsman fallacy.
Valid argument for species created by genetic manipulation which, again, no biologist would claim as example so this is again a strawman. No valid argument for species created by humans through breeding. Breeding is nothing else than selection, and natural selection can do the exact syme thing. Humans create cows that give a lot of milk by selectively breeding for it. That's just a different parameter, nothing of substance.
[quote]In neither of the above examples cited by Isaak was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally “new” trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms.[/qwuote]I'll come the new information bit later, but this is again a strawman. If humans set the selection parameters or nature does is irrelevant.
Natural genetic recombination is part of evolution. Do i see a no true scotsman? I though i did.
Unless one can propose a mechanism that stops small changes from adding up, it is pure willful idiocy to expect them not to. It's like saying you can never get a million grains of sand in a box if you only add one at a time.
Most common definition is that organism that can interbreed are part of the same species. (Interbreed and provide fertile offspring that is)
Bullshit. Let me repeat that BULL-SHIT.
First: Creationist never, ever, define how you measure quantity of genetic information anyway. The notion of quality is ridiculous beyond measure anyway. That might make sense in a creationist "god created us perfect until the fall" kind-of-way but is nonsensical in real genetics. Because creationist never say how you'd measure quantity they can never been shown examples of increasing quantity so they'll always be able to say "that's no real increase" at whatever example is provided.

Second: Even without a definition this argument can most easily be shown to be the bullshit it is. All mutations are reversible. Point insertion can happen and point deletion can happen. String insertion, copying and deleting. Etc. ad infinitum. For any arbitrary set of genes (A) there is a sequence of mutations that would transform it into any other arbitrary set of genes (B). (well countless possible sequences actually). And also for every (B) there's another sequence that can transform it into (A). This proves that the "no new information" claim is bullshit.

More detailed, imagine genome (A) mutating into (B) by a single point insertion. Now one of three things could have happened.
1) Information stayed the same
2) Information increased
3) Information decreased
1) can clearly not be the case for all mutations, since we see different organisms, and we see organisms changing.
So, all relevant mutations either 2) increase or 3) decrease information.
So what happened when (A) mutated via point insertion to (B)?
Let's assume this increases information. Ok, point proven, information can increase. But the creationist will say this case isn't possible. That means only 3) could happen.
Now lets examine that possibility. (A) mutated to (B) and lost information. So far, looks like the creationist claim of no new information could be possible, right? Wrong. A genome like (B) could just as easily have mutated via point deletion to (A). And if (A)->(B) is a decrease in information (B)->(A) must logically be an increase in information!
There is no way out of this for creationists. If mutations can decrease information, they can also increase information because all changes by mutations are reversible. And in fact, (A)->(B) is overall no more or less likely than (B)->(A). After all, one is a simple point insertion, the other a simple point deletion.

This logical proof, however simple (and probably better explained than i did) still won't convince creationists though. The "no new information" claim is just a shiny new form of a very old argument. "We've never seen a monkey give birth to a human".
Really, that's what this boils down to. Anything less than instant major change within a generation won't ever satisfy creationist. Ironically enough, observing something like that would actually disprove evolution.

Refused

HA! It can be hard being a rookie around here. Good reply

- Refused

Flint

I think we can safely say that "creationist evoluton" has never happened. The definition of "creationist evolution" is "more change than has been observed." This is a suitably moving target. What it suits is the creationist doctrine that Evolution Does Not Happen. Therefore it can't be observed. Therefore, what we HAVE observed can't be evolution.

ninewands

Allow me to interject 2 words that vastly expand upon Dhaeron's logical explanation with real-world facts about a species that MUST be admitted to be new and a result of "increased information" even by creationists.


See, especially, "Key points to ponder" about halfway down the page.

Evoken

Are there any more examples? The pool of evidence seems to be quite small, limited and repetitive (fruit flies, moths, bacteria resistence, etc). There should be something a bit more.."impressive".


Valz

Flint

And around we go. It's not evolution if it's not impressive enough. How impressive is enough? More than we have observed, forever.

Evoken

Well to make it simple, if you had to choose one piece of evidience, what would you present as the strongest one in support of macroevolution?


Valz

ZouPrime

Define macroevolution is a meaningful way. Speciation? Something else?

As Flint said, "And around we go"...

Evoken

"Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993)."

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


Valz