Why do evolutionists thing that information can be created by rearrangement?

Question

What an obviously false claim. Information cannot be created from disorder. Here's a meaningless string of letters that contains no useful information:

tisces telfis magun neen hin

This string of meaningless symbols does not contain any meaningful information. All enzymes do to DNA is rearrange it, and there is no possible way the above string could be rearranged to contain information. Imagine an enzyme can interpret strings of English. The string could have been created by pure chance, but it does not tell the enzyme to do anything, so it contains no useful information.
Here's an example of another meaningless arrangement of the string of letters above.

this sentence is meaningful.

All I have done is "chopped up" and "recombined" the string in the same way enzymes do to DNA. The fact that the new string cannot be interpreted in English shows that enzymes cannot reorganize meaningless strings to give them a meaningful interpretation. So information cannot be created.

Skalite: Most people don't ever seem to get the sarcasm. It's still fun to read answers from people who think I'm serious. I'll bet that even though I've admitted to the "trolliness" of the post, people will still take it seriously.

elmjunburke: one misspelled word (thing = think) hardly makes this difficult to understand.

and Matt J, I'll go ahead and cite Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach" as a source that'll explain more deeply why it's legitimate for me to make the comparison between anagrams and DNA sequencing.

Answer 1

Eventually, by randomly rearranging the letters, you would get "this sentence is meaningful" out of "tisces telfis magun neen hin".

It would prpbably take a long time, and there would be many failed attempts along the way at getting a proper sentence, but eventually it would occur.

We are no different.

Answer 2

You obviously know nearly nothing of molecular biology. A serial string of phonetic symbols which have linguistic meaning to an English speaker are a completely different concept than the nucleotide bases (A,C,G,T) arranged along a strand of DNA. Biochemistry and linguistics are NOT related, except in your over-active imagination. Here's a big hint: groups of three nucleotides are called codons and they code for the 26 naturally occurring amino acids which make up all proteins.

I'm sure you imagine you've constructed a beautifully crafted logical argument, but the truth is you've made an utter fool of yourself. If you really wish to understand molecular biology, you have a lot more study ahead of you, before you become even marginally competent. If you wish to support your faith by undermining biological science, you are on a fool's errand. DNA technology is mature enough that it's founding principles are rock solid and logically unassailable. You'll need a lot more education before you're qualified to tilt at this windmill.

Edit: You were being sarcastic? Sorry, but I missed it completely. I'm too rushed to go back and rethink my response. Sorry, I've got other issues now. Bye.

Answer 3

By gene duplication and transcription error.
Codon sequence ABC codes for assemblage of protein #a
Sequence is duplicated, transcription error + ABD, codes for protein #b; now species has both proteins #a and #b. Information has been added.

Real life example
Most mammals, having evolved from nocturnal ancestors are dichromatic, lacking genes that prodice opsin proteins for short wave light (red) detection.
In humans and other primates related by common ancestry for 22 million years, the gene coding for MWS opsin has been duplicated, the duplicate sitting next to the MWS gene on the chromosome; 2 nucleobases are different, sufficient enough to make a gene which assembles a SWS opsin = trichromatic color vision in humans and closely related apes and monkeys.

There are many, many other examples of adding information to the genome in this manner.

Please take an advanced course in molecular genetics if you wish to learn the facts in my field.

Answer 4

I hope you are a troll, by definition rearrangement creates new information. You argument might as well be asking how can scientists say gravity is an attractive force, or how can we say that the color red has a wavelength of about 630 nm.

alright i can see from your other questions you were being sarcastic, you got me.

Answer 5

Hey I like this game too..how about.... yuror'e an iodit? that seems meaningless right? But it seems that a lot of people can read sentences like this as long as the first and last letters are in the right place...weird isn't it? I can read it, can you?

Answer 6

We humans share common ancestors with the "monkeys" (chimps, gorilas and a few others). But if you want to label an australopitecus afarensis (for instance) as a "monkey", go ahead. I can't see anything wrong in descending from a "monkey".

Answer 7

How lame this is! You, sir, are a coward because if you truly wanted to get rational answers to this, you would have asked it in the Biology section.

Answer 8

I don't think anagrams are a relevant comparison to human DNA.

Answer 9

I sure hope you know what you're trying to say. Okay you keep mixing up words and spelling. Can it be that you're kind of mixed up yourself ?

Answer 10

You forgot that you needed a capital "T", and a period in the first set.