Question about creationist argument

[TheDeafPianoTuner]

Hello,
I am recent de-convert from Christianity (what a relief). I have been spending the last few months watching videos on evolution and the evidence for it, trying to understand as much as I can.

I have one question that I am hoping someone can shed some light on, incase I might be missing something.

I've been seeing this argument by creationists that goes something along these lines: "mutations don't increase information in the genes, therefore mutation cannot account for an increase in complexity"

First off, I don't know a whole lot about genetics. But my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is that our genes are a code, like a string of binary computer code. Each animal just has one permutation of all the possible values that string could take on. The purpose of the genetic code is that it represents the instructions on how to build and grow an animal. A mutation is like flipping one of the bits in a string of binary numbers, which will change the instructions, and produce a slightly different animal.

Mutations, as I understand it, don't "add or decrease information", they simply change the instructions. Different instructions produce different animals, some instructions produce simple animals (bacteria) other instructions produce complex animals (tigers).

Let's say I have the instructions for baking cookies, which can be thought of in terms of code, and each word or number is a unit that could "mutate". If I "mutate" the cups of flour in the instructions from 1 cup to 100 cups, I've got a larger batch of cookies (and, arguably, a more complex batch of cookies!). I haven't "added" or "subtracted" any words to the instructions, I've simply changed them, and the result became bigger / more complex.

Anyway, my point is to say that I really don't understand this concept of "mutations adding or decreasing information", I think it might be misrepresenting what mutation actually is, but I would like to know if I am on the right track here.

Thanks!

[Jenny A]

Your cookie recipe analogy is apt. A mutation might add a step, change a step, or delete a step.

If you want to learn a lot in hurry without buying books, this is a good site to start with: Talk Origins. Here's another: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...life.shtml

[Esquilax]

You're essentially right, OP. The big problem with all these contentions about information is that information isn't really a thing. It's just a big, fuzzy, self important word that sounds sciency, but that the person using it has no clear idea of. How is information measured? What is a single unit of information? How much information is needed for life, and how did they determine that?

You'll never get answers to those questions, because anyone using this particular contention hasn't thought that far ahead. They might as well be making up words. In truth, information only exists in minds that are capable of discerning patterns from physical phenomena, it's not an objective material that exists in DNA or anything. When discussing mutations, what we're actually talking about is chemical reactions taking place in predictable ways, with slight variations caused by the fact that the gene replication process isn't a perfect one. Information isn't involved until one looks at the pattern and predicts what would arise from it.

This creationist argument is bullshit all the way through.

[ignoramus]

Welcome matey...
I too had similar questions and these quys whetted my appetite so I started watching and reading on the net.... Science and information won't put you off evolution one bit. Quite the contrary, it'll reinforce it.
There's plenty of evolution info on the net proving why some things can't happen. You will find that they all are sponsored by bible groups. Science belongs to its own group ...truth.
(And we all know "truth" and religion are mutually exclusive).

[rexbeccarox]

The problems in the argument come from the words "purpose", "information", and "instructions". "Purpose" and "instructions" imply deliberation, and what Esq said about "information". Creationists try to anthropomorphize it, but science has no reasoning in and of itself.

Welcome, OP

[TubbyTubby]

Hello,
I am recent de-convert from Christianity (what a relief).

Hi. What was the major influence in your rejection of christianity if you don't mind my asking.

[GrandizerII]

Mutations, as I understand it, don't "add or decrease information", they simply change the instructions.

Spot on.

Welcome to the forum.

[FreeTony]

I've been seeing this argument by creationists that goes something along these lines: "mutations don't increase information in the genes, therefore mutation cannot account for an increase in complexity"

Take this code: 11111111

Modify it to: 10011010

There is actually more information entropy in the second code than the first. Actually a completely random code has a greater informational entropy than a more uniform code. How you define which code is more complex is entirely up to you, just as you could have a pointless argument over whether a squirrel is more complex than a cat.

This is not the same as Heat Entropy. The word entropy is used as the formula to calculate it is similar*. This isn't unusual, most things in physics have similar fomulas. For example a driven mass on a spring uses the same mathematics as a simple radio. Information entropy doesn't follow the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Creationists love to equate the two but they are different*.

Finally some mutations double the original DNA, resulting in a code ABDC going to ABDC ABDC so you end up with twice the DNA. This can then mutate to become something like ABDCABDB.

*If you want to study statistical mechanics then you will see more similarities and learn that the 2nd Law is actually just very very likely to happen, not definitely.

[Mudhammam]

Hello,
I am recent de-convert from Christianity (what a relief). I have been spending the last few months watching videos on evolution and the evidence for it, trying to understand as much as I can.

May I recommend:
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dan Dennett

I haven't read it yet but Endless Forms (I think that's the name) by Sean Carroll is supposed to be a great (and more recent) book on the subject.

[Angrboda]

Arguments about evolution based on "information" are primarily throwing the word "information" on top of a standard creationist argument to make it sound scientific. The argument that mutations only decrease information is basically the same old argument that mutations are always harmful, only using the word "information" to make it sound scientific. There is no process in evolution, information or otherwise, which prevents beneficial mutations (increases of information) from occurring. It's just a scientifically sounding update of an old argument.