This is of course one of my pet peeves: creationists who talk about mutations without speaking of natural selection (or the reverse -- speaking of how natural selection can only work on what's already there, without noting how mutations can change what is there to select from).
Showing that one mutation is harmful does not show that all mutations are harmful. Evolutionists are already well aware (it's in pretty much every book on evolution) that while most mutations are neutral, harmful ones vastly outnumber beneficial ones. But of course, "harmful" means that they are less likely to pass on their genes, so the preponderance of harmful over beneficial mutations is not a problem for evolution; the harmful changes are filtered out over and over again over the course of history (and prehistory) rather than accumulating without end.
On the other hand, whether a mutations is beneficial or harmful often depends on the environment -- the same mutation that is harmful in one environment might be beneficial in another. Those sunflowers are in a vase; the slow-breeding mutants might be favored by human growers (i.e. they would in fact be "better" by the standards of the growers, who decide which plants will be bred).
Whether mutations can create "information" depends on how you define and measure "information" (and in my experience, creationists don't, in fact, define or propose ways to measure it; they just toss the word around like a magic talisman). Given that known sorts of mutations (single-nucleotide substitutions, insertions or deletions of one or more nucleotides, duplication of sections of the genome, transposition of sections of the genome, insertions of viral genes, etc.) can, in sequence, alter any genome to any other, it seems very odd that, if there is "information" in the genome, they cannot create more of it.
Further Opinions
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Comments