More than lacking new information, don't mutations require _extra_ information?

[Gottservant]

People say "mutations do not represent new information" and I think that is a solid argument. What do you think about the idea that, for a mutation to work, extra information is needed?

The example I would give is of a monkey supposedly growing a tail by accident. Surely the monkey would need the necessary information to control that tail or problems, perhaps fatal, would ensue, wouldn't it?

I leave this thought for you to comment on.

 

[gluadys]

People say "mutations do not represent new information" and I think that is a solid argument. What do you think about the idea that, for a mutation to work, extra information is needed?

The example I would give is of a monkey supposedly growing a tail by accident. Surely the monkey would need the necessary information to control that tail or problems, perhaps fatal, would ensue, wouldn't it?

I leave this thought for you to comment on.

You need a few more options in your poll. How do I answer when I think of evolution as the means of creating new species? I can't think of creation or evolution more than the other, because, as I see it, they are indissolubly intertwined so that thinking of one is thinking of the other at the same time.

As for your example, I don't see why it would be a problem. In the first place a monkey inherits the capacity to grow a tail from its primate ancestors who inherited it from their amniote ancesters who inherited it from their tetrapod ancestors who inherited it from their vertebrate ancestors who inherited it from their chordate ancestors. Early chordates were the originators of the tail, so that is where one needs to look for the genetic changes that gave rise to it. The rest is simply reproduction.

A monkey might grow two tails. Or none. Either would likely be a developmental problem, like a calf being born with two heads or an extra leg, or like those children born in the 1970s who were exposed to thalidomide in utero and born without arms or legs.

Not really related to evolution per se.

 

[Gottservant]

A monkey might grow two tails. Or none. Either would likely be a developmental problem, like a calf being born with two heads or an extra leg, or like those children born in the 1970s who were exposed to thalidomide in utero and born without arms or legs.

Not really related to evolution per se.

Yes, it is related to evolution. Evolution says that you can mutate into a new species without consequences, this is plainly wrong. If a monkey develops a tail it is not enough that the tail is simply there, the monkey must be able to use the tail.

Imagine I gave you a car and there was no-one to teach you what it was or how it worked. Do you suppose that you would be a successful driver on the basis of your own trial and error? I tell you no, you would have given up, be dead or in immanent danger of an accident because you are without any instincts or propensity needed to successfully drive the car.

What is more, this example of learning to drive a car is given in a context where you are able to learn from experience, no such possibility exists in the womb or egg. If you make a mistake in the womb and you have no information to help you, no added DNA to direct you, you are as good as dead, whether now or soon after you are born. How then can evolution be thought to work so liberally - even as to create new species, for crying out loud - when so much can go wrong and probability dictates that it will? This is something that proponents of evolution cannot answer.

If I give you a piece of paper that says something on it in a language that you cannot understand, you are at a total loss as to what to do with it unless someone instructs you further. Suppose you are to deliver it to a certain address, where are you going to get the information for that address from if you cannot read the piece of paper you are given? I tell you that you will not even think to ask someone, if you do not understand that much, for why should you think it is even important?

Now imagine that it is not even part of your design to be able to read that language on that piece of paper and no-one before you has been able to either. Do you suppose that that piece of paper will be delivered? I tell you no, but it will go to waste. So it is with the expectation that something will come of mutations that is new and interesting.

 

[theIdi0t]

Yes, it is related to evolution. Evolution says that you can mutate into a new species without consequences, this is plainly wrong. If a monkey develops a tail it is not enough that the tail is simply there, the monkey must be able to use the tail.

Well perhaps you should tell that to your creationist scientist:

From AiG's Arguments we think creationist should NOT use:

“No new species have been produced.”
This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.

So figure out your error first then return.

 

[notto]

This is something that proponents of evolution cannot answer.

Strawmen don't require an answer.

By your logic natural immunity should not exist in certain populations of individuals. Evidence shows us that it does. Your argument is contradicted by observable evidence.

You need a new argument.

Maybe if you tried to support your argument with evidence, it would work out better for you.

Your rantings based on a poor understanding of evolution don't warrant much of a response because they are nonsense.

 

[crawfish]

Next poll: do you believe in gravity, or falling?

 

[notto]

I'm going to have to agree with ChrisBot on this one.

http://www.christianforums.com/t566...require-_extra_-information.html#post36538633

 

[theIdi0t]

Next poll: do you believe in gravity, or falling?

 

[gluadys]

Yes, it is related to evolution. Evolution says that you can mutate into a new species without consequences, this is plainly wrong.

No it doesn't. There is a good deal more to evolution than mutations. Trying to equate evolution with just one of its mechanisms is a distortion of how evolution happens.

If a monkey develops a tail it is not enough that the tail is simply there, the monkey must be able to use the tail.

What is more, this example of learning to drive a car is given in a context where you are able to learn from experience, no such possibility exists in the womb or egg.

Indeed we do not learn how to use our bodies in the womb. Nor does any animal. So how is it that all mammalian infants know from birth how to suckle? How do we learn to blink our eyes? How do we learn to turn our heads toward a sound that we hear?

The fact is that babies do not have to be taught these things. And the monkey does not have to be taught to use its tail. It simply flexes its muscles and uses it.

If you make a mistake in the womb and you have no information to help you, no added DNA to direct you, you are as good as dead,

That is just not so. I don't know where you got your information from, but it is just wrong, wrong, wrong. I hardly know how to begin to correct it, as I can't even figure out what the source of the error is. Do you know at all what DNA actually does?

And mutations do not happen in the womb. They occur in the germ cells as eggs and/or sperm are being produced. That is the point at which DNA is duplicated and copy errors can be made. By the time conception has occurred, the mutations are already in place.

How then can evolution be thought to work so liberally - even as to create new species, for crying out loud - when so much can go wrong and probability dictates that it will?

That may be why 99% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. Things went wrong.

But it wouldn't be just a matter of changes in DNA. Some of those species were very successful for quite a while, an indication that their DNA was fine. Other things can go wrong too. Survival involves a lot more than genes, and evolution involves a lot more than mutations.

If I give you a piece of paper that says something on it in a language that you cannot understand, you are at a total loss as to what to do with it unless someone instructs you further.

Not a problem with DNA since all species use the same DNA language. No translation problems to deal with.

 

[Assyrian]

People born with extra fingers don't seem to have problems controlling them do they?

 

[Tiberius]

People say "mutations do not represent new information" and I think that is a solid argument. What do you think about the idea that, for a mutation to work, extra information is needed?

The example I would give is of a monkey supposedly growing a tail by accident. Surely the monkey would need the necessary information to control that tail or problems, perhaps fatal, would ensue, wouldn't it?

I leave this thought for you to comment on.

A good response can be found HERE

.

 

[Chamale]

People born with extra fingers don't seem to have problems controlling them do they?

Many polydactyly can't control their extra fingers. However, some can.

I'd like to remind you that the first life appeared on Earth about 3 billion years ago, after a billion years of potential. That's 1,000,000,000 years of 1,000,000,000,000 pools of sludge until something came lucky enough to breed, eat, and move. After that, it took 2 billion years until something came along that was lucky enough to have multiple cells, be able to move them well, and transfer nutrients around.

Those were the hardest things to evolve, and after a while it became easier for life to keep going, giving us the massive diversity on Earth.