Talk:Linnaeus was a creationist (Talk.Origins)

''A group of dogs can produce a new species of dog. Plants can produce new species of plants. (This is erroneously called microevolution, but is simply small-scale variation with no increase in genetic information.)''

This is incorrect. It is now clear that variation (such as the dog breeds) is not the result of simply shuffling genetic information, but an increase in the number of alleles in the created kind. I am currently working on a new paper that summarizes the current evidence from canine genomics. Read the paper that I had published last year in the Answers in Genesis journal TJ.

Genetic Variability by Design http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/recombinationreview.html

--Chris Ashcraft 15:00, 28 Jun 2005 (GMT)

Thanks for letting me know. I've changed my article. Hopefully it is acceptable. I'll e-mail you with a question if you don't mind.

Amenyahu

Ashcraft, I've been thinking about genetic information and the concept of "new" genetic information, and your studies on recombination. Now forgive me if I get this wrong, but this recombination is still based on existing genetic information. Although it may increase the genetic variability of the gene pool by mixing or recombining the genetic information in a special way, but is that the "new" genetic information that I normally speak of, the sort that would give a fish with no genetic information for legs a novel piece of code for usable legs? Plus, although this recombination increases the genetic variability, would you not agree that it is still limited to the possible variability within that kind or baramin of animal? This, to me, on my level of knowledge, helps me understand why although the variability among wolves to domestic dogs may have been enlarged, they still seem to remain the same kind of animal.

I think these are my points when it comes to "increase in genetic information", i.e., novel or new information. Maybe you can help me understand if there are holes in my logic. Thanks.

Amenyahu 29/06/2005 11:37am GMT

"evolution"
I think it might be more useful to not use the word "evolution" given the amount of leeway it can be used in. Instead it would be more useful to use more specific terms like "Universal Common Ancestry" and "Variability". These have more definite meanings attached to them.

Everyone believes in variability. Not everyone believes in Universal Common Ancestry. Even fewer people believe in an atheistic origin of the higher taxa.