tgamble

This may be way off but here goes anyway.

Creationists argue that no "new information" is created in DNA. it's just variation, rearrangement of what's already there. They are wrong of course, but that's beside the point.

Graphite and diamonds are both made up of pure carbon yet they are different. Mere rerrangement makes them totally different.

<a href="http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0001E803-BB40-1CEA-93F6809EC5880000&catID=3" target="_blank">http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0001E803-BB40-1CEA-93F6809EC5880000&catID=3</a>

Are diamonds and graphite just variations of the same type of rock then? Does rearrangement of DNA also cause large changes? Why is this just variation?

Like I said, I may be way off but it's an interesting thought.

lpetrich

A simple mechanism for genetic-information increase is gene duplication, and there are numerous examples of duplicated genes. However, some creationists claim that that does not mean an increase in information, though they are vague about what they mean by "information". Ed once gave an analogy with saying the same thing in two different ways, meaning that they have something like functionality in mind.

tgamble

Only according to the evil evolutionists who cling blindly to their false religion to justify their ammoral lifestyle.

I realize there are mechanisms of increasing information. My point was that rearrangment can create large changes as well. At least for rocks. I don't know if it's the same with DNA through I wouldn't be surprised.

scigirl

Cool idea, tgamble.

Chemical rearrangements that you are describing do not really happen with DNA: the atoms are always arranged in the same way to produce the double-helix structure.

However, a lot of our gene regulation has to do with winding and unwinding of the DNA. Proteins called "histones" hold on to DNA through electrostatic mechanisms (histones are + charged, DNA is - charged). Certain regulatory enzymes act on the histones, removing their positive charges such that they essentially "let go" of the DNA. Then the transcription machinery can get in and do its job, namely, make mRNA which eventually is translated into protein.

In this sense, if you "rearrange" the DNA differently at different times in development, you get radically different outcomes. It's one way how, despite all of our cells having the same DNA, we get muscles and nerves, etc. Alter this pattern, and you would get a different set of tissues organized in a different way (i.e. chimp versus human). How is that not new information?

So? Even if it was? Evolution doesn't have to follow patent laws, does it???

If I read a shakespeare play in a different order (for instance, ophelia drowns herself, then she gets scolded by Hamlet, implying that she came back from the dead), and this new story imparted a new meaning (clearly, Hamlet would have a much different impact on us in reverse order!), how is this not a NEW story?

"New" can mean a tiny tiny rearrangement of the last program, as long as the outcome of that rearrangement is different enough to be acted upon by selection. The next time a creationist says, "There is no new information," then tell them that a chimp and a human are obviously the exact same thing then. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

It's like saying, "there is no new stories being written" (which is sort of true - very few stories invent new words, or new human emotions, etc. . .) but then saying this means that stories therefore aren't really written! (which is obviously false)

scigirl

Sorry about the tangent! I hope this made sense, I have had wayyy too much coffee today!

HRG

Tell us your coffee brand, scigirl. There will be a big rush to buy it if it makes people write such excellent posts!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
HRG.

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: HRG ]</p>