Talk:Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis (Talk.Origins)
Re: "Evolution is based on the idea that nature and living creatures on their own can create new genetic information."
No, it isn't. Genetic information is a recently devised concept, used almost exclusively by creationists. It is not, never has been and actually cannot be the basis of evolution; not least because the concept of evolution predates both knowledge of genetic structure and information theory.
Roy 11:12, 21 May 2005 (GMT)
Is it so recent?
This person said: "Genetic information is a recently devised concept, used almost exclusively by creationists."
I would recommend that you just go to a normal search engine and type in the word "genetic information" and just see how many non-creationist sites and non-creationist research organisations use such a term, and that should easily disprove this mistaken statement by this person.
"Genetic information" is not a creationist term, but just a term to describe the information stored in genes and in DNA.
The writer also said: It is not, never has been and actually cannot be the basis of evolution; not least because the concept of evolution predates both knowledge of genetic structure and information theory.
Unfortunately, the writer again as looked at the problem very superficially. It is known now that hereditary changes in morphology and other characteristics in an organism must take place in the DNA. The only way that evolution could happen is for changes to occur in the DNA, for the information in the DNA to increase.
Now Charlie Darwin may not have known about DNA, and his ignorance of it may be the inherent weakness in his theory. But as knowledge increased about biology and genetics, it is now known that the changes proclaimed by the grand theory of evolution, must happen in the genes, the DNA. See the Dictionary.com definition of evolution and you will see that evolution does mean change from one kind of animal to another. This change is based on a change in the genes. So evolution is based on changes in the genes, in genetic information, despite earlier ignorance of the roles of genetics.
==========
A search for "genetic information" on google wasn't very useful, since almost all the sites listed were about medical, ethical and legal uses of the information about the DNA of individual humans. So I tried a search for "new genetic information", with the following results (first 100):
51 References to information about DNA, rather than to the information content of DNA
25 Creationist/ID references to information content of DNA as a quantity
20 Mainstream references to information in DNA, but not as a quantity; mostly about
the addition of new genes into existing organisms either artificially or by bacterial transfer
4 Mainstream references to creationist/ID use of information content of DNA as a quantity
Not a single reference was found to any mainstream discussion of information stored in DNA. The results do not only not refute my comment but in fact show that "Genetic information" in this context is solely a recent creationist concept. I can only surmise that you did not run such a search yourself.
As for your second comment, it is indeed known that evolution is based on a genetic change, but that does not mean it is based on an increase of genetic information; this idea is a creationist canard with absolutely no basis in genetics, as demonstrated by the complete lack of mainstream discussion of the idea.
Roy 12:57, 6 Jun 2005 (GMT)
Insults and misinformation
You said: "but that does not mean it is based on an increase of genetic information; this idea is a creationist canard with absolutely no basis in genetics, as demonstrated by the complete lack of mainstream discussion of the idea."
I looked up the meaning of "canard". It means "a deliberately misleading fabrication". In other words, you are calling creationists liars. It is a shame that you have to be so offensive. That really isn't needed.
You have shown that you don't do very well when it comes to research. Let me help you. I did not look up "new genetic information". That was your search. I maybe should have clarified this before. I looked up "genetic information", the term that you refered to in your first response to my article. I included the speech marks and searched on Yahoo! and found more sites I also lengthened my search to "genetic code" since a code implies information, and I found many more sites. Even Wikipedia has a section on genetic code. It even states the following:
"The genetic information carried by an organism - its genome - is inscribed in a DNA molecule." (Genetic Code)
So you were inaccurate and incorrect to limit the term "genetic information" to creationists.
You also must have trouble comprehending the theory of evolution which states common ancestry for all living organism, and the first life must have been very simple in genetic information (I don't using the word since it is not limited to creationists) or, lets say, a more limited genetic code. Now to go from simple to complex, by definition, means an increase in genetic information. I'm surprised you cannot grasp that.
I don't know what you have to gain by saying I didn't do such a search or the same search as you. Do you have any idea why I didn't conduct the same search as you? Because the fact is you only brought up the statement "genetic information" as mainly a creationist concept in your first post, not "new genetic information". The claim you made in your first post was incorrect. You make the alteration, adding "new" and limiting it to genetic information as a quantity in your second post and say that is purely a creationist deliberate fabrication: a lie. Even then your logic is weak as I shall explain later.
Here are two results of my search:
They both yield enough, but not exhaustive, positive results to refute your false accusations about me and creationists in general. Maybe you simply need to understand what is meant by the term "an increase in genetic information". This article by Answers in Genesis may help: Variation, information and the created kind. Or maybe this one: How is information content measured? .
I hope any prejudice against scientists who accept Genesis on your part will not limit you from finding out more on this topic.
I also notice your use of the word "mainstream". What are you insinuating? That "mainstream" means "more likely to be true" and anything else is "more likely to be false"? Does being "mainstream" guarantee truth because more people supposedly believe it? Is "truth" now just something based on majority opinion? Does the (most likely erroneous) claim that maybe only creationists use it in a certain way mean that the way in which they use it is inaccurate and wrong and a lie? Man, I am so surprised. It is the evolutionist/atheist/"agnostic" that repeatedly uses the phrase "think for yourself" when insulting and falsely accusing other religions. Yet we have the very same people, evolutionists/atheists/"agnostics", accepting and rejecting certain things because mainstream science, the prevailing current of thought, the majority accept and reject the same things. That is very very sad (meaning, sad-pathetic, not sad-unhappy) and inconsistent. So what if creationists are the only people to use the words "genetic information" (even though that isn't true)! Or even the phrase "increase in genetic information"! What matters is what the words mean, and how they are applied to genetics, and as far as I can see, it is applied accurately.
Confirmation
Your search results confirm my own - in the first 50 sites from your search on "genetic information" there are only three references to information within DNA as opposed to information about DNA, and only one of those refers to genetic information as a meaningful construct. That one was an ID chat group.
I also note that both your references regarding increases in genetic information were to creationist sites; thus further demonstrating that this is a creationist idea.
You have produced nothing to even scratch my claim that genetic information is a recently devised concept, used almost exclusively by creationists.
Roy 13:07, 26 Jul 2005 (GMT)
