Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No New Genetic Information?
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 5 of 27 (440248)
12-12-2007 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
12-12-2007 10:07 AM


Assuming you really meant to say "less vulnerable to antibodies,"
I don't think he did mean that he was saying it was information than confered vulnerability that was lost, not that the loss itself made them vulnerable. Maybe Benerbits sentence could have benefited from a bit more punctuation to make it less ambiguous.
The claim is that there was pre-existing genetic information which caused the bacteria/virus to be vulnerable to attack by antibodies, presumably something coding for a highly antigenic epitope. It is the subsequent loss of this genetic information which supposedly leads to a reduced vulnerability to antibodies.
The problem here is, as always, with the question of what constitutes a 'loss' of information. If a single nucleotide substitution reduces the antigenicity of an epitope then is that a loss of information? There is no less DNA. The main problem is that IDist/ creationist proponents seem to presuppose that there is a perfect platonic genetic sequence and any change to that sequence represents a loss of information no matter what type of change it was. As you point out this idea is easily countered by the question of what a mutation causing a reversion to a higher information state would constitute. T
This of course is why they harp on 'new' or 'novel' information, so that they can dismiss any change from the hypothetical 'perfect' genetic state as a loss of information and counter any reversion to that state as not introducing new or novel information. So while your reversion would constitute a gain in 'information' to that genetic sequence it wouldn't represent the gain of 'novel' information.
So the extra twist is not simply asking to see an increase in genetic information but a requirement for it to be novel.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 12-12-2007 10:07 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by bernerbits, posted 12-12-2007 10:36 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 17 of 27 (440434)
12-13-2007 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by bernerbits
12-12-2007 7:11 PM


Not even talking about evolution
I doesn't seem a good sign when right from the start your interlocutor is putting forward his own highly idiosyncratic definition of evolution which no-one in evolutionary biology would ascribe to.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by bernerbits, posted 12-12-2007 7:11 PM bernerbits has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by bernerbits, posted 12-13-2007 9:07 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024