Do you know what the theory of evolution is about?

[gluadys]

I'm a YEC'ist and here's my natural understanding of the TOE. BTW, if you see any inconsistencies, please correct me as I loathe being misinformed.

Ok so there are supposedly several elements that guide evolution:

The first is reproduction. In order for a species to survive, it must successfully reproduce at a rate that is greater than or equal to its death rate.

2nd is inheritable genetic information.

3rd is random mutation within that genetic information through reproduction.

4th genetic information tends to be spread within the population.

5th Environmental pressures determine which mutations prove to be negative, neutral or beneficial towards the goal of reproduction. Individuals that possess negative mutations will reproduce at a rate that is less than those who possess the positive mutations. Over time, this should cause change in the overall population.

That's not bad. I wish more creationists would show at least this much understanding of how evolution works.

6th Over vast amounts of time (and this is where I get off the train) a population will repeat this cycle any number of times as is necessary to accumulate massive amounts of information within their genetic codes.

This is a problem. There is not really a reason to accumulate "vast amounts of information" over and above what their ancestors had. After all, once the information is changed, the earlier version no longer exists. So its not as if there is necessarily more information in the descendant population than in the ancestral population---just different information.

There are also mechanisms which add more DNA as well, but then there are mechanisms which delete DNA too.

The thing about this is that it must be done in small steps that can be overcome by chance processes or not at all, thus the need for "missing links". There's no room for leaps in evolution.

Yes, small steps, though they can occur at a rapid pace leaving few traces.

 

[Sojourner<><]

That's not bad. I wish more creationists would show at least this much understanding of how evolution works.



This is a problem. There is not really a reason to accumulate "vast amounts of information" over and above what their ancestors had. After all, once the information is changed, the earlier version no longer exists. So its not as if there is necessarily more information in the descendant population than in the ancestral population---just different information.

There are also mechanisms which add more DNA as well, but then there are mechanisms which delete DNA too.



Yes, small steps, though they can occur at a rapid pace leaving few traces.

Forgive me for my lack of appropriate wording. I recognize that the total amount of DNA an animal possesses can be irrelavent to it's progress in natural selection. What I'm trying to say is that the total amount of 'coherent' information within DNA in general would need to be increased if evolution was to be attributed to the origin of the species. For example, if a fish were to evolve into a whale, the total size of its genome might not increase, but the amount of 'coherent' information contained in the genome would have to since whales are obviously more complex than fish. Whatever information left over that is not 'coherent' is just garbledygook.

 

[gluadys]

Forgive me for my lack of appropriate wording. I recognize that the total amount of DNA an animal possesses can be irrelavent to it's progress in natural selection. What I'm trying to say is that the total amount of 'coherent' information within DNA in general would need to be increased if evolution was to be attributed to the origin of the species.

I assume you mean that the other way around, that the origin of species is attributed to evolution. I still don't follow your argument though. You seem to be making some assumptions that come from outside the theory of evolution.

For example, if a fish were to evolve into a whale, the total size of its genome might not increase, but the amount of 'coherent' information contained in the genome would have to since whales are obviously more complex than fish.

I am not sure that a whale is more complex than a fish. How can you measure that? Especially given that there are several different types of whales and hundreds of different types of fish. If anything, the greater diversity of fish would seem to make fish more complex than whales.

Whatever information left over that is not 'coherent' is just garbledygook.

By 'coherent' do you mean "coding DNA" i.e. the DNA that codes for proteins as opposed to the DNA that has other purposes (e.g. Hox genes) or unknown purposes or no purpose at all (so-called "junk DNA")?