An Alternative to Evolution: pt 2 (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, July 10, 2018, 10:51 (556 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You keep harping on about information and sticking rigidly to the specialized use of the word mutation. That is understandable, but you can hardly deny that evolution involves change (another meaning of the word mutation). Please answer the question I asked above: did the first brain not add “information” to that which existed in brainless organisms?

DAVID: See Tony's explanation. A brain is not information. It is an object and it came from existing information in original DNA.

Tony’s explanation of information is specificity, purpose, context, meaning etc., and DNA is a designed language, and each gene has a specific function. Of course the brain is an object. But if the brain never existed before, and then gets passed on to future generations, does it not contain specific, purposeful, meaningful genetic information that was not present in brainless organisms?

dhw: The same argument. I agree, and I’m sure David also agrees. Once more it all boils down to an attack on random mutations. That does not invalidate the theory of evolution by design! I also agree with your description of information, and still cannot understand why innovations such as the brain, sexual reproduction etc. cannot be said to add specificity, purpose, context, meaning etc. to the brainlessness and asexuality that preceded them.

DAVID: You are confusing advances in complexity with information which produces the complexity. Complexity occurs but information is not added, only altered. Humans are highly complex, but their DNA is smaller than many organisms.

First of all, I must say I am surprised that as a theistic evolutionist yourself, you are not prepared to defend your view of divinely designed evolution, or perhaps like me you are waiting for more details of Tony’s alternative.

I find the whole discussion on “information” as confusing as ever, and this may be due to my unfamiliarity with scientific jargon. However, I am here to learn. As above, I don’t understand why a new organ cannot contain and pass on information that did not exist before. So please define exactly what YOU mean by information. (Tony’s definition was the above list of nouns, but one can always introduce new meanings, functions, purposes.) DNA is not information. It is a substance that carries information. Why can't it carry new information? I don’t understand the relevance of your final remark. But perhaps all this will become clear when you give me your definition of information!

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum