Hans made a comment about how absurd an original, perfect organism with all of the genetic information nescessary for subsequent life would be. I agree, but it is no more absurd than the idea of a creator God, who contained or new all of the information for the creation of the entire universe. Of course, if evolution by the random addition of “information” is possible, this fanciful organism isn’t nescessary. (Of course we still must explain the origin of the first organism even if it is very simple).

What are you talking about? READ a biology journal. New genes hae been observed forming and then being selected for all the time: so many times that, in fact, it’s not even news to anyone but creationists and those that listen to them.

“I call baloney. For one, your definition of information is not correct. When you say “information”, you are talking about value, not information. Furthermore, I said this earlier:”

You don’t know what you are talking about. Information in biology is difficult to define, but all meaningful definitions take into account the idea of functional expression: something that can be improved just as easily by substracting as adding to a genome (and in fact, in virus evolution, both are happening all the time). You are also thinking about the wrong thing: not simply the information content of a single organism, but rather of the entire gene pool. Think of information as something useful/meaningful being filtered out of a large pool of noise. Mutation is constantly adding new noise to gene pools in the form of random variation. Selection is constantly crafting shaping bits and pieces of his variation as per the demands of the local environment. It also protects existing structures from the ravages of mutation.

“It is irrelevant whether the subtraction of information adds value or decreases value.”

If you want to talk science, then you haev to talk terminilogy. What you are talking about when you talk subtraction is actual genetic code itself: the As,Ts,Gs, adn so on. But this in itself is NOT information. Mutation can indeed subtract an A or a T here and there, but this is not itself necessarily a loss in information… and in fact it can even be a gain. However, what you don’t seem to understand is that mutation is just as likely to add an A or G here or there in the code. And this TOO can both increase, decrease, or keep the information content the same (which is actually the result that we get most mutation).

“The point is simple math: if you start with a pebble and chip away you can make a useful arrowhead, but you’ll never get a statue.”

But it just isn’t so that mutation only shrinks genes: it also grows them (it also scrambles them up_. All the time. That pebble is constantly growing and at the same time constantly being chipped away at by selection. Evolution is like a dribble castle: mutation is constantly at once dumping new matieral onto the pile and washing old material it away… but selection allows environmentally functional patterns to preserve and even grow.

You have a lot to learn about evolution before you can start legitimately criticizing it.

He seems to think that microevolution doesn’t involve an increase of information in a gene pool. But in fact that’s exactly what the process is all about.

Yes, the in the theory of microevolution information increases, but all the actual microevolution that has been observed has been to do with loss of information.

–

For one thing, he doesn’t understand what information is: for instance, he seems to think that the loss of genetic material can only decrease information content, when in fact it can either increase or decrease it (think of a block of stone: chipping away at it is precisely what needs to happen to create a more organized statue).

I call baloney. For one, your definition of information is not correct. When you say “information”, you are talking about value, not information. Furthermore, I said this earlier:

Micro evolution starts with a working organism and substracts information to improve it. [emphasis added]

I have said that subtraction of information does at times add value and natural selection ensures that this information is retained.

It is irrelevant whether the subtraction of information adds value or decreases value. The point is simple math: if you start with a pebble and chip away you can make a useful arrowhead, but you’ll never get a statue.

Nonsense: creationists only in the last decade have conceeded this point, and in fact it’s pretty rare that creationists really accept it anyway. In fact Hans Mast is basically sitting here denying it right now. He seems to think that microevolution doesn’t involve an increase of information in a gene pool. But in fact that’s exactly what the process is all about.

For one thing, he doesn’t understand what information is: for instance, he seems to think that the loss of genetic material can only decrease information content, when in fact it can either increase or decrease it (think of a block of stone: chipping away at it is precisely what needs to happen to create a more organized statue). Viral mutations involve both the creation of new genes and the loss of existing ones: both of which can and do increase the overall informational content of the gene pool of viruses. If he’d ever read any biology journal on the study of virus evolution or any other sort of evolution, he’d know that. Instead, he prefers to knowingly lecture us all on a subject that he hasn’t even bothered to learn anything about.

The real question is: what sort of ideology would lead someone to do something like that?

The line that you’re drawing between the evolution of viruses and the evolution of other organisms is altogether arbitrary, as arbitrary as the notion that small changes (”microevolution”) can’t add up to big changes (”macroevolution”).

The point is not small information versus big information. It was a mistake to use the term microevolution and macro evolution. That detracts from the point. Microevolution is the correct classification for the viral mutations, but that is beside the point. (Speciation is also a form of micro evolution. It also involves a loss of genetic data.)

The point is this: the viral mutations that we see involve loss and corruption of information.

Common descent does not work with this kind of evolution, unless you would start with a perfect orgranism that contained all the genetic information for all the organisms. (evne the wackiest evolution proponents don’t suggest that!)

You can’t take 5 minus 2 and get 6. You can’t go from a slug (a simple 1) to a monkey (a complex 15) by subtracting information.

Natural selection is the process by which beneficial genetic changes are kept and passed on. It is not the mechanism by which the genetic change is made.

The actual changing of the genetic information is a separate process. (Yes, natural selection affects the material that the gene changing process has to work with, but they are separate processes nontheless.) With viral mutations, genetic information is destroyed. Coupling genetic destruction with natural selection can result in a better organism or virus, but it can’t build a more complex organism from a less complex one. These two processes (mutation/corruption/removal of genetic information coupled with natural selection) are not the mechanisms of macro evolution/common descent. Ask any evolutionary biologist.

Sure they have. I mean, to the extent that “they” can be lumped together. Some creationists deny it, some accept it.

virus mutation is not a mechanism by which macro evolution/common descent can be accomplished.

Sure it can. That’s natural selection. Same mechanism.

That is micro evolution. Micro evolution starts with a working organism and substracts information to improve it.

Macro evolution’s theory of origins starts with either nothing or at its most fanciful a simple organism (where did that simple organism come from?). Let’s take the more unlikely simple organism. If that simple organism were to experience the mutation type that occurs when avian influenza mutates, it would be reduced from a simple organism to an even simpler organism. This kind of mutation doesn’t add information, it subtracts. If you take a simple organism and subtract information from it, you can’t get a complex organism.

Avian influenza’s mutation in no way proves macro evolution and/or common descent. They are two entirely different things. I won’t get into the other mechanisms that make up the macro evolution/common descent theories (I have already debated those extensively). My point is this: virus mutation is not a mechanism by which macro evolution/common descent can be accomplished. Go ask any virologist.

In fact, I don’t think creationists have ever denied micro-evolution.