You misunderstand the whole "information" thing which is a common creationist blunder. Every single mutation changes the information in the genome, some delete specific genes, sometimes a gene gets mutated into another, sometimes a gene duplicates. Any one of these mutations could "add" information to the genome, as they have changed the entire genetic code of the animal.
I'd personally like to see some evidence that both colours were already in their genes, because I've never heard of that before.
Firstly, a species can change into another species without gaining information. In order for this to happen you would simply have to delete information from the genome until the animal couldn't reproduce successfully with its ancestors any more.
Secondly, the above doesn't really matter, because the whole concept of "information" you guys have doesn't exist. Genetics doesn't work like that. Sure, we can pinpoint sections of genetic code that relate to certain functions of the organism, but by changing one of the genes in those functions doesn't necessarily mean the function is reduced. It could have a positive effect on the function (what you would call increasing information) or it could simply have no effect at all.
To show how your assertion of out contradiction is wrong, you only have to look at your original example of the beetles that lost their wings. In their environment, losing wings was a good thing, so they hardly got "inferior". Without their wings they survived more. It all depends on the environment, and as we've discussed elsewhere on this forum, we currently have no solid way of determining complexity, let alone how "inferior" a species is.
If your other team members aren't able to continue, perhaps it might be better to invite some of your other group members? Just PM me their account names and I'll make sure they can post in here.
I'd personally like to see some evidence that both colours were already in their genes, because I've never heard of that before.
Quote:One species can NOT change into another without gaining information. You can only lose so much. And even if you wanted to argue that it COULD, it would still contradict what you are saying. That would mean that each species gets more and more inferior. See?There is no contradiction to what we are saying. You are creating a strawman argument in order to make it appear that we have a contradiction.
Firstly, a species can change into another species without gaining information. In order for this to happen you would simply have to delete information from the genome until the animal couldn't reproduce successfully with its ancestors any more.
Secondly, the above doesn't really matter, because the whole concept of "information" you guys have doesn't exist. Genetics doesn't work like that. Sure, we can pinpoint sections of genetic code that relate to certain functions of the organism, but by changing one of the genes in those functions doesn't necessarily mean the function is reduced. It could have a positive effect on the function (what you would call increasing information) or it could simply have no effect at all.
To show how your assertion of out contradiction is wrong, you only have to look at your original example of the beetles that lost their wings. In their environment, losing wings was a good thing, so they hardly got "inferior". Without their wings they survived more. It all depends on the environment, and as we've discussed elsewhere on this forum, we currently have no solid way of determining complexity, let alone how "inferior" a species is.
If your other team members aren't able to continue, perhaps it might be better to invite some of your other group members? Just PM me their account names and I'll make sure they can post in here.
