l_johan_k

Something I often hear from creationists are that "mutations can't add information" or "mutations can't create new functions". It would be nice to have a loooooong list of scientific articles that prove them wrong. Anyone who got an example?

Doddy

At the EvoWiki, we reference at least 30 such articles.

EvoWiki: Evolution of new information

Faid

Check for "novel genes" at PubMed.

And, of course, you've got antifreeze proteins, Milano protein, Nylonase, etc.

Of course most creos will handwave it all away by saying that all these things don't really increase information, see, because "biological information", in their vocabulary, means... um... Like, "something that the genome has, that can't be increased by mutations". Or-or something.

But who gives a damn what they say.

Doddy

Or, they say that the 'potential' for those mutations was always there, given by God.

RBH

On the general topic of information theory and evolution, several papers of Michael Lachman are very good. Here is one example.

RBH

Calilasseia

I see the Thomas Schneider paper is included in the EvoWiki.

Got that on my hard drive.

l_johan_k

EvoWiki rulezzz! :notworthy:

(and it's up and running! )

Doddy

For now. Joe says it could die any time.

(We need to upgrade servers)

ck1

I think that the "something" used in these arguments is the "specificity" of the protein - any measurable change, say in binding to ligands, is viewed as a "loss in specificity" which, for creationists, translates to loss of information (even if this change has adaptive value). This is what I recall from arguments on the Milano protein.

l_johan_k

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server. Apache/2.2.4 (Unix) PHP/5.2.1 mod_ssl/2.2.4 OpenSSL/0.9.7e-p1 Server at wiki.cotch.net Port 80

:frown: