Are you stating there is conclusive evidence that the genomes of
modern creatures contain more information than the genomes of their
ancestors, and that information is gained as time progresses? Raw
information, as opposed to information put through theoretical
gymnastics in order to conform to an artificial standard?
I said they were excellent thoughts; I did not say they were my own.
I'm simply trying to get a handle on the technical details of the
specific issues involved by consulting those with diametrically
opposed positions.
My purpose is not "...getting involved in debates. They take up
time, get acrimonious, and usually achieve nothing."
Sure, I have my favorite side of the issue--but I'm still looking for
the facts, which, as history has shown, are often not in line with
prevailing theory...
:)
jm
-----
On 3 Feb 2001, at 2:56, CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/2/01 7:49:10 PM, johnmarlow@gmx.net writes:
>
> >Hogan's reply:
> >
> >Hmm. Difficult to know which to pick. Maybe the question of the
> >origin of the stupendous amount of information in a genome --
> >... But _not one_
> >of the examples usually cited in textbooks etc. as "evolution in
> >action" has ever been found to add information, and so cannot count
> >as a meaningful evolutionary step. Bacterial resistance to
> >antibiotics, for example, (e.g. streptomycin) results from a
> >deterioration that loses the molecular specificity necessary to
> >accept the antibiotic's deactivating "key" -- i.e. a loss of genetic
> >information, not a gain.
>
> I'm really surprised you'd fall for such a baldly ridiculous claim.
> The evolutionary field is full of examples of "information" gain, either
> by the Shannon-Weaver minimum compressibility definition or
> by a predictive definition. Examples include beta-lactamases, the
> nylonase (which arose by a frameshift!), the complex chromosomal
> polymorphisms of French mosquito insecticide resistance,
> polydactyly (six-fingered people), and Lenski's bacteria.
>
> The guy you're citing is either completely clueless or a bald-faced liar.
> "Evolution can't produce information" claims usually derive from the
> latter. Creationists try to dodge the issue by defining "information"
> in a Shannon-Weaver sense when discussing selection and then
> redefining to a completely different predictive sense when discussing
> mutation.
>
John Marlow
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:34 MDT