I've heard this rather odd argument many times. The way I respond is first to ask what they mean by "new information". Usually they have no clue ... this argument is just something they read somewhere and they actually don't understand it that well (it just "sounds" like science). So it could mean one of three things:
1. If it means a change in the molecular sequence of the DNA, then *every* mutation is, by definition, new information. It may not be *beneficial* new information, but it is new information nonetheless.
2. If it means growth in the amount of information stored in the genome, then there are many mutations that increase the size of the information. One of the simplest forms of mutation is gene duplication. This is where a gene gets accidentally duplicated into another part of the same or a different chromosome. This is often lethal, in which case it doesn't get very far in the species ... but if it is neutral, having two copies of the same gene has no effect. If a subsequent mutation changes one of those copies, you now have two different genes. For example, the genetic evidence is that the development of three-color vision in primates is the result of a gene duplication + mutation of one of the copies ... if going from two-color vision to three-color vision isn't "new information", then what is?
3. If "new information" means a *beneficial* mutation, then trivially, a bacteria developing immunity from antibiotics is an example of new information (it's certainly beneficial to the bacteria!). Where else would the gene (the "new information") for that immunity come from if not from mutation?
This is why Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates are often scientifically bankrupt. They can't even define their own terms.
P.S. 'Nickname's provides a nice explanation of how a simple sequence change represents new information.
2007-05-30 12:02:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by secretsauce 7
·
5⤊
2⤋
Who told you that mutations don't add information? That's just not so. For example, take Robert Frost's famous poem, "Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening", but let's say he wrote the end differently--
Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though;
He will not see me stopping here
To watch his woods fill up with snow.
My little horse must think it queer
To stop without a farmhouse near
Between the woods and frozen lake
The darkest evening of the year.
He gives his harness bells a shake
To ask if there is some mistake.
The only other sound's the sweep
Of easy wind and downy flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
Now let's perform an elementary type of mutation called gene duplication, and have the last line repeat. (Gene duplications are well known mutations in biology, changing the linear sequence of the DNA repetitively)
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
This duplication vastly changes the meaning of the poem. With only one line, the poem only speaks of the remainder of the travel home that Frost is taking that very evening. With both lines in place repetitively, Frost conveys not only that evening's travel, but the remaining travel we all take to the end of our lives, when we finally sleep forever. Not only can a mutation add this increased level of meaning, but also can change the meaning of duplicated information. This is the kind of thing you do on your computer every time you save something using the command "Save As..." For example,
And miles to go before I slip,
And miles to go before I sleep.
See the difference? The very same kind of things go on in the linear sequence of DNA all the time, although not every mutation adds information every single time. So whoever told you that mutations do not or cannot add information is very poorly informed about the subject and really doesn't understand what they are talking about. I hope you have a better idea of the facts now. Mutation is the reason for variation in living things, and evolution is based on the natural selection of these variants.
2007-05-30 10:10:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by Nickname (exactly 32 characters) 3
·
4⤊
1⤋
They don't have to add information. The whole point of random mutations is that they can either make an organism better adapted to it's environment, or worse. If it is better, it has a greater chance to survive and reproduce. It is worse, it will have a greater likelihood that it will fail to survive and produce fewer offspring. Thus the only thing that matters is that something changes. Evolution can also occur when some latent ability becomes important to survival.
For example, the ability of some bacteria to be more resistant to antibiotics will tend to leave only those that are resistant surviving in an antibiotic-rich environment but it would be meaningless in one where antibiotics were not present.
2007-05-30 09:44:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Steve 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Mutations can 'add information'. It's all down to chance. If a gene mutates and results in the organism being bigger, for example, and this is advantageous for the organism's success, is this not evolution?
Saying 'mutations do not add information' is somewhat ambiguous. If by information you mean new traits that may or may not be an advantage to the organism then I would say the statement is absolutely false.
Is this some Creationist nonsense?
2007-05-30 09:51:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Mutations are changes in nucleotide sequence. From that you would have a change in amino acid sequence, resulting in a change in the resulting protein (good or bad). If you change the sequence, you may have a code for something that wasn't already there...
2007-05-30 09:44:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jason 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
2007-05-30 09:50:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Take it from Toby 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, it kind of make sense.
Natural selection. You can't select something that wasn't there to begin with. You can only select from already existing information.
2007-05-30 09:36:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
7⤋