Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 21, 2026, 7:12 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Argument #3: Mutations
#1
Argument #3: Mutations
Carl Sagan, stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." However, mutations which apparently result in new traits in an organism are due to the corruption of existing information rather than the formation of mutations gaining new information. This reality conflicts against what would be expected for the advancement of evolution.
Reply
#2
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
Oh, good Grud!

Playing Cluedo with my mum while I was at Uni:

"You did WHAT?  With WHO?  WHERE???"
Reply
#3
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
Chew toy, you're back!
Reply
#4
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
(June 10, 2014 at 11:41 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Chew toy, you're back!

Are you okay with that? Angel Cloud
Reply
#5
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
(June 10, 2014 at 11:42 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:
(June 10, 2014 at 11:41 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Chew toy, you're back!

Are you okay with that? Angel Cloud

Absolutely! Devil
Reply
#6
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
(June 10, 2014 at 11:35 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Carl Sagan, stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." However, mutations which apparently result in new traits in an organism are due to the corruption of existing information rather than the formation of mutations gaining new information. This reality conflicts against what would be expected for the advancement of evolution.

Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

/thread
Reply
#7
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
You know, it occurs to me Rev, that before you post the stuff you rip off from AIG, that you might want to cross-check it against what real biologists actually have to say on the matter, lest it make you look foolish.

I'm having an odd sensation of deja vu.
Reply
#8
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
^^Yup.

Rev! Compared to our current chewtoys, your particular brand of neener-neener-boo-boo is a welcome sight!
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply
#9
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
(June 10, 2014 at 11:56 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You know, it occurs to me Rev, that before you post the stuff you rip off from AIG, that you might want to cross-check it against what real biologists actually have to say on the matter, lest it make you look foolish.

I'm having an odd sensation of deja vu.

FYI, I didn't get that from AIG.
Reply
#10
RE: Argument #3: Mutations
Before we move on, address the answer to your argument, Rev. ETA: I forgot about this part of 'discussion' with Rev.

I'll quote it, in case you missed it:

Quote:1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Kalam Cosmological argument. JJoseph 113 27393 January 10, 2024 at 12:38 am
Last Post: Astreja
  A 21st Century Ontological Argument: does it work. JJoseph 23 6953 January 9, 2024 at 8:10 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God. Nishant Xavier 162 39175 July 9, 2023 at 7:53 am
Last Post: Deesse23
  Is the Argument from Degrees contradictory to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics? FlatAssembler 49 11552 June 26, 2023 at 6:59 pm
Last Post: Belacqua
  Is my argument against afterlife an equivocation fallacy? FlatAssembler 61 14664 June 20, 2023 at 5:59 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  A simple argument against God Disagreeable 149 40960 December 29, 2022 at 11:59 am
Last Post: Mister Agenda
  My Almighty VS your argument against it Won2blv 43 11344 May 5, 2022 at 9:13 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ? R00tKiT 225 61030 April 17, 2022 at 2:11 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  What is the best counter argument against "What do you lose by believing?" Macoleco 25 5354 May 1, 2021 at 8:05 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The Watchmaker: my fav argument zwanzig 672 191828 March 31, 2021 at 11:34 am
Last Post: John 6IX Breezy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)