... but, the eye is still there and additional proteins are necessary to cause the eyelids to be sealed...new information. In actuality what happens in these cases is not that the eyelids seal shut, but, that when mutations occur that blind the individual, since the eye is useless in the environment anyway, the survival and reproductive imperative is not altered, the blindness is passed on to offspring which survive and reproduce just fine.
The sealed eye is also protected from infection and parasites. Less infection or fewer parasites = increased survival.
"Information does not have to be increased for the mutation to be beneficial. It has to be increased for the theory of evolution to be plausible."
I have yet to study anything in genetics and I was wondering, if those of you who know genetics could clarify these statement and tell me wether they are true or if it is all just another creationist misunderstanding.
The other standard creationist or IDist claim is that information is not created by mutations it is just rearranged from previously existing information.
This too is bogus for a couple of reasons. First there is no definition of "information" given, second there is no metric for measuring the quantity of "information" present before and after, and third, information is in the arrangement.
If you look at any method used for conveying information, the information is NOT in the alphabet or binary code used, it is in the arrangement of them: rearranging can and does provide new information.
Not necessary, because rearrangement can create new combinations. Seeing as there is NO evidence of a past "SUPERcell" (the first life known is a simple cyanobacteria) this is just another ad hoc invention made to support a false concept.
{abe}One could say that this conclusion thus shows that the whole argument is false, because there is absolutely no evidence for such a "SUPERcell" to have existed or for this division of pre-existing stored DNA information to currently exist and play a role in the continuing evolution we see today.{/abe}
Enjoy.
ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
This year's Nobel prize in biology was for research into gene regulation and expression, and when I read your post I wondered if perhaps the snake's loss of legs was due to regulatory changes rather than to loss of actual genes.
Doesn't this just shift the issue of {gain\loss} to the gene regulatory part of the DNA?
This would be similar to the {off\on\off\on} expression of wings in the walkingstick insects.