Thought of the day - "new information" and saltation

how do most creationists even define or quantify genetic information? Geneticists are still learning about the relationships between individual genes, their protein products, the interaction of those products and regulatory elements which serve to form a complex network which yields end traits we perceive as "complex." We know that even minor alteration of regulatory elements can have a very large end effect on expressed phenotype. But I've never heard a creationist try to quantify that.

When i was a YEC i would have described it as follows: Refering to this article - http://www.bcm.edu/pa/fruitflyfinished.htm
"The genome is the total collection of genetic information in an organism. In humans, the genome consists of 3 billion base pairs, or chemical units, on 23 pairs of chromosomes. The fruit-fly genome, consisting of four chromosomes, is about the size of one human chromosome. "

The human genome is "more complex" than the fruit fly. There are more genes and more chromosomes. Ive since learned that apes (eg chimps) have more chromosomes than humans. Does anyone know of a creature which has a substancially more complicated genome than man? Eg 60 chromosomes and 200000 genes?

It seems to me that creationists now gravitate towards arguments of "no new genetic information," and I've heard many challenge evolutionists to produce "examples of mutations which increase genetic information or complexity."

Now, mutations can add to the total genetic content of an organism. Similarly, genes can be duplicated and, through time, diverge. We have examples of both in peer reviewed literature. Why that's not "new information," I'm not sure.

But none of this seems "enough" for creationists. The most recent argument appears to be that there is always a "net loss of genetic information," that is, while natural forces can account for a localized increase in information, the "net sum" effect is still an overall decrease. Thus striking down the proposed mechanism for evolution, which in turn is supposed to make evolution irrelevent or whatever.

So, my first question is this - how do most creationists even define or quantify genetic information? Geneticists are still learning about the relationships between individual genes, their protein products, the interaction of those products and regulatory elements which serve to form a complex network which yields end traits we perceive as "complex." We know that even minor alteration of regulatory elements can have a very large end effect on expressed phenotype. But I've never heard a creationist try to quantify that.

Every creationist I've ever talked to has said something like "well, in the proposed evolution of X to Y, Y has features that X didn't have. So that's the new information." But that's also a weird way of looking at information - by focusing on the end-traits as opposed to the genes and gene products which influence those end traits. Since mutations occur at the level of DNA, it seems easier and, frankly, more intuitive to me to look for keys and means to quantify complexity towards that end of the life spectrum.

In other words, the standard dogma of genetics is:

DNA<-->DNA-->RNA-->protein-->trait.

In terms of mentally quantifying complexity, creationists look at the end traits and think "wow, this is so complex, this could never have evolved." But, as stated, even small changes at the level of DNA (particularly in terms of regulatory elements) can have a large end-effect. So if we're quantifying complexity and what "natural" forces are capable of accomplishing, it seems we'd first have to understand the particular processes involved leading from DNA to an end trait. Given that the world's finest geneticists are investigating this as we speak, it strikes me unlikely that creationists have already figured it out and are capable of making any strong statements on the subject.

Now, if creationists want examples of "new information" that we can observe within a human timeframe, what do they realistically expect? My impression is that creationists want an example of a single mutation which is responsible for growing wings or granting laser vision. They're looking for saltation.

And if you think about it, it's really the same logic they use for their demanded examples of evolution, only in fancier language. I've lost count of the number of creationists who suggest that an example of evolution would be "a monkey giving birth to a monkey with wings" or something along those lines. The creationists in lab coats, in effect, demand the same thing by demanding examples of "new information" that are just as ludicrous.

What's more, I have trouble believing most creationists are in a position to begin to quantify "genetic information." Most professional creationists (hi Mark Ramsey) go out of their way to avoid defining it, in fact, or do so in the manner described above - by showing differences in traits over time and abstractly calling that "new information."

I believe its not the amount of information but the specified complexity of that information which does not increase.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembs...specified.html

I dont understand it enough to call it silly.