Re: Added information with mutations
- From: chadmaester <chad.d.johnson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:34:23 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 28, 8:16 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
chadmaester wrote:
On Nov 28, 7:24 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
chadmaester wrote:
I talked with my biology professor today after class, asking him
whether an organism having an extra limb due to a mutation is an
example of added information. His response (I recorded it with a voice
recorder to get the exact words) was as follows:
"We have numerous reports of mutated frogs coming out of California
that do have extra hind legs. The reason they have that is not that
they've generated new mutation that has created some new information
that codes for a new leg. It is because there's a mutation in the code
that controls the generation of that extra limb. What is being argued
by those who claim mutation is a way to generate new forms of life is
that there are mutations that can generate an extra body segment, but
you have not generated any extra information; you have instead changed
the control mechanism."
I have two questions:
1. Is his what he said accurate?
I doubt it. The extra limbs are more likely to be developmental
anomalies that aren't reflected in the genome. Various manmade nasty
chemicals can have that effect (and some natural ones too).
Now a mutation in the control mechanism could result in an extra leg,
but whether that's added information depends on how you define
"information" and on what sort of mutation is was.
2. If the control mechanism changes, resulting in an extra leg, then
doesn't the modified control mechanism represent something new?
Sure. It's a mutation, a change in the genome. What do you and your
biology professor mean by "information"?
I'm not quite sure. My question (I now realize) was as vague as what
he told the class about no "new information" being added to the genome
with mutations (god I hate being in that class...). I asked him via
email what *he* means by "new information"--I'll let you all know when/
if I get a response.
What would you consider to be new information?
I wouldn't. It's not a useful concept in biology. You are very
unfortunate to have a creationist biology professor, apparently at a
university whose policy is creationism. Now since nothing in biology
makes sense except in the light of evolution (to quote T. Dobzhansky),
very little your professor says is likely to make sense.
Sure, that's an exaggeration. As long as he sticks to a restricted range
of simple facts, like how many legs a dog has or how the Krebs cycle
works, you should be fine. Just don't ask why a dog has that many legs,
or wheree the Krebs cycle came from. And you should have trouble
retaining information, since all you're getting will be a mass of
disconnected facts. If you ask me, "free" is too much to pay for this
education you're getting. At least in biology.
Luckily my major is computer science :) I'll graduate soon, and fully
intend to restudy this stuff soon after. I have the book "Evolution:
Triumph of an Idea" by Carl Zimer--that's on my list.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Added information with mutations
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Added information with mutations
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Added information with mutations
- References:
- Added information with mutations
- From: chadmaester
- Re: Added information with mutations
- From: John Harshman
- Re: Added information with mutations
- From: chadmaester
- Re: Added information with mutations
- From: John Harshman
- Added information with mutations
- Prev by Date: Re: Why Evolution is a metaphysical hypothesis
- Next by Date: Re: Why Evolution is a metaphysical hypothesis
- Previous by thread: Re: Added information with mutations
- Next by thread: Re: Added information with mutations
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|