Evolution or creation? (page 15)

hooberus

rem said:

"A lengthened genetic sequence automatically contains new information. The new information may be useless, garbled junk, but it is still new information."

While a lengthened genetic sequence contains NEW MATERIAL it does not necessarily contain NEW IMFORMATION as imformation is carried by order. For example words are arranged into sentences, and sentences are arranged into paragraphs. What I just wrote is information, the following is not even though it is longer:

dhfbruecnzwqorivutunuywvxlcjdhuyuuweuueuuuurunvnnurunvneuswqpxnvbdgwywufnmvnbqyzyhs

djfjjjfjjfjjfjjfjjjjfjjjfjrjfjfnfnnfmnfmmmcmmfmmmmcmmdjeiwifdiowqioqwmxslcmlmvmlfmvlfvmkllleioefmfm

cmiemioqwmcmvkfvmfodoofokoivkoqkoksokvomvjkxkjgasadfgwplrgvnnrycbycnsdkjcneufnjdrnurghgh

ejffjjfjfiejfiewjeijfiejfmlbmouhzywgdhvkdrhgnhutdngbunmunuhnuwhuifdhuirhgurhguhuhurhuhguhruhgu

iwjiejfirjgurhguithrunsudhfunueshfuuiqiiivijvirjvuijuhjiusehfuheufihuieshfibtohkokocmmdmcjjejfjjrjjjjj

hooberus

rem said:

The first act of inserting the genes already added information that was not in the gene sequence before.

No one disagrees that information can be added from one source to another thus adding to the amount of information in the receiving party. The issue is how did the information come about ORIGINALY. When creationists talk about "adding information" they are not talking about taking from one source and adding it to another. They are talking about the ORIGINAL information being built.

Crazy151drinker

Actually Hoob, that IS information. It might not be MEANINGFULL but it is information.

hooberus

rem said:

"This is where you are going wrong - you are not understanding that even if the exact same sequence is copied to another area, that does not mean that it's the same information anymore. If the information is in a different area, then it performs a different function, thus new information."

While the information may be in a different area, performing a different function, it is still old information. I can move the talk-origin information to this site, a different area, and even use it to my advantage (a different function) but it is still old information.

rem

DNA is not directly analogous to the english language. It is more analagous to computer code, just as I described before.

Even if you were correct that a lengthened genetic sequence only contains new material and not new information, then you are still ignoring that further mutations can mold that new material into useful information down the road. You have completely ignored this in my prior posts.

rem

hooberus

crazy, its raw material, but it only becomes information if it is specified. My series of junk letters was simply raw material, it carried no information.

rem

I can move the talk-origin information to this site, a different area, and even use it to my advantage (a different function) but it is still old information.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Information in DNA is not the same as information in the colloquial sense.

If you had ever run the Evolution simulation program "Tierra", as I have, you would understand that moving and concatenating information actually creates new information.

http://www.isd.atr.co.jp/~ray/tierra/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/tierra.html

rem

Edited by - rem on 30 October 2002 15:14:2

hooberus

rem said:

"Even if you were correct that a lengthened genetic sequence only contains new material and not new information, then you are still ignoring that further mutations can mold that new material into useful information down the road. You have completely ignored this in my prior posts."

My response: we are dealing with two issues here:

rem said: "Even if you were correct that a lengthened genetic sequence only contains new material and not new information,"

My response: We'll call this issue #1 and if it has been resolved move on to issue #2.

rem said: " then you are still ignoring that further mutations can mold that new material into useful information down the road. You have completely ignored this in my prior posts."

My response: We'll call this issue #2 and I will attempt deal with it although it is more complicated than issue #1 as the creation of new original information is much more complex that moving around already existing information.

Realist

hooberus,

the DNA encodes for proteins. if you duplicate a DNA area which encodes a protein (= gene) then you have at first 2 identical genes encoding the same protein. however due to mutations the sequences will change with time (over many generations) giving eventually rise to two at first slightly and later severely different proteins.

there is an enormous number of proteins that are very similar but have slight differences. these proteins have similar but not identical functions (look up the hemoglobins, DNA polymerases, most transcription factors for instance). these proteins are very similar in sequence and function also amoung different species.

rem,

are you a biologist? you know quite a bit about biology!

rem

Realist,

I wish! But, no, I'm just a lowly network engineer. I've always been fascinated by science and biology, though, even as a little boy. I suppose that if the Society wasn't so down on college when I was a kid I might have gone into some type of biological study (or computer science). I took a lot of biology and anatomy in high school and I just read a lot nowdays. You seem to have a lot of good information about proteins, which I seem to gloss over in my readings.

rem

Evolution or creation?

Share this