Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (jeannot @ Nov. 18 2011,00:54)|
|It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.|
For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.
Yes I believe he is heading that way, by showing that all mutations create negative information.
He pointed out the following paper as important to his argument:
It's our well known friend Behe, but it's peer reviewed. Still reading through it I don't see anything that could be a visioned as anti-evolution. He does seem to lean towards evolution only subtracts though.
And I believe that his argument will be: see on a molecular level all that can happen is negative - loss of function / information. Therefore there is no way that you could have increased complexity through evolution. So your only option is things were "created" complex or through "divine" genetic intervention.
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin