tgamble

In AIG's response to SA Sarfati's insists that AIG rejects the no useful mutations arguments. Instead he insists that no mutations increase genetic information.

Mutations exist that increase traits but not information. How this works is beyond me.

As for loss of traits, whales (which don't have legs) evolved from land mammals that did. Loss of a trait. It's still evolution.

If one looks at a creationist "kind", I'd be willing to bet that within that group, there is more than enough genetic diversity to claim new information.

I'd also wager that useing the same standards, apes and humans would be of the same "kind". I can't say this for sure but it would be interesting to find out.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

tgamble

Nah, they know that evolution leads to more information, they just insist that no new genetic information has ever been created. Hence, evolution (which can't be falseified or tested they say) has been tested and falseified. Go figure!

Dark Jedi

A guy by the name of Tycho once said:
"Argueing anything on the internet is pointless. Neither side convinces the other. All anyone does is put their issues on the table and gesture wildly at them."

Tabula_rasa

This is definitely true, but there are far too many that do continue to push the "no useful mutation argument," IMO. AIG just happens to be one group that doesn't. Pointing out that this group does refute the argument is another way to educate the uninformed.

Tabula_rasa

oops

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Tabula_rasa ]</p>

Abacus

Aren't there any creationists here who can alleviate my confusion? Or are you just going to ignore me, a dirty, confused heathen?

Darwin's Finch

Be patient, RNG! It takes a lot of work to respond to such a question. First, one has to decide how best to quote-whore from Dembski. Then, having chosen whatever obscure passage one wants to hide behind, it becomes necessary to interpret it somehow, lest one of the pesky evolutionists actually call you on it and demand some accounting of Dembski's methods.

I'm sure (sarcasm mode on) that one of our creationist friends will give you a full explanation of biological information, just as soon as they figure out what the hell it is supposed to mean.

Atticus_Finch

I will humbly try to state the creationalist's position. I am a Christian and a creationalist but not an expert on the subject. Seeing no one well versed in the creationalist's position I will step up to the plate.

My understanding is that the argument is that genetic mutations may either be good or more likely bad. However, that such mutations never add new genetic material which may be passed on to subsequent generations. Diversity is the result of mutations which turn on or off existing information or mutate it in some form.

The idea is, I am intentionally stating this in a very simplistic form, that there may have originally been only one type of bear. That bear contained all the genetic material necessary to allow all the diversity we see in bear types. Over generations the various types of bears came into existence through mutation and natural selection. For example, bears that moved north tended toward white fur because that was beneficial, etc.

I honestly hope this answers your question.

Regards,

Finch

Abacus

Interesting. I've never heard this idea before. What's the evidence for it?

Tabula_rasa

And what constitutes adding new genetic material? There are genetic mechanisms known which can copy genes as well as copy entire chromosomes. Both of these provide a way to add additional information to an offspring. If the offspring gain a reproductive advantage, then this information will spread through subsequent populations.

But under the ID hypothesis, what scientifically testable mechanism would account for the first bear type to come into existence? And what did it mate with? BTW, what type is homo sapiens under Intelligent Design? Are we an ape type? A simian type? Or are we a special type?

With what is already known about the evidence for the ToE, this can be explained quite easily and naturally with the known mechanisms which confer reproductive advantage to offspring and natural selection. Scientists have an entire body of genomic data that shows a nested pattern of common descent. This genomic data (homology) matches identically to the morphologic data. How does ID address this?