Dude, you're back! 
The problem here is twofold: the first is that "information" in the sense that you're using it isn't an objectively real thing, it's a product of human beings being able to read the chemical reactions in DNA, so what we're talking about here isn't a "corruption" in information, but rather a change in the set of chemicals in a specific set of DNA. There's no "ideal" DNA code, and so nothing to state whether the changes are inherently good or bad outside of how the affect the organism in its life. If it helps, imagine it like a word in English; yes, the letters do get switched around in the reproductive process, and sometimes that will lead to nonsense in return, but at other times it leads to whole new words.
The other problem here is... well, what are you expecting to happen? "Corruption," what does that mean? What do you think that'd do to an organism? Human beings are born with at least sixty, upwards of two hundred, mutations each; here's a link, this is verified science. It's very clear that this isn't as harmful as your creationist buddies want to make it seem, else we'd all be in serious trouble, right? As it stands, we're all just people, because most mutations start out small.
As for mutations that allow for new functions, that's trivially easy to demonstrate; there's a strain of Flavobacteria that can eat nylon, a material that had not existed before 1935. More importantly, this same nylon-digesting mutation is reproducible in laboratories, as it was induced in a separate species of bacteria later.
There you go; an additional function, gained due to mutation, added under laboratory conditions. That answers your argument, right?
(June 11, 2014 at 12:29 am)Revelation777 Wrote: The so called new information that many evolutionists claim that takes place is a result of a corruption of already existing information. The examples you cite fail to achieve a "gain in functioning" mutation. In fact if there were an evolution from molecule to man we should readily see an abundance of this occurrence, we don't.
The problem here is twofold: the first is that "information" in the sense that you're using it isn't an objectively real thing, it's a product of human beings being able to read the chemical reactions in DNA, so what we're talking about here isn't a "corruption" in information, but rather a change in the set of chemicals in a specific set of DNA. There's no "ideal" DNA code, and so nothing to state whether the changes are inherently good or bad outside of how the affect the organism in its life. If it helps, imagine it like a word in English; yes, the letters do get switched around in the reproductive process, and sometimes that will lead to nonsense in return, but at other times it leads to whole new words.
The other problem here is... well, what are you expecting to happen? "Corruption," what does that mean? What do you think that'd do to an organism? Human beings are born with at least sixty, upwards of two hundred, mutations each; here's a link, this is verified science. It's very clear that this isn't as harmful as your creationist buddies want to make it seem, else we'd all be in serious trouble, right? As it stands, we're all just people, because most mutations start out small.
As for mutations that allow for new functions, that's trivially easy to demonstrate; there's a strain of Flavobacteria that can eat nylon, a material that had not existed before 1935. More importantly, this same nylon-digesting mutation is reproducible in laboratories, as it was induced in a separate species of bacteria later.
There you go; an additional function, gained due to mutation, added under laboratory conditions. That answers your argument, right?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
