This article presents the “no new information” argument against evolution. Simply put, where did the information required for increasingly complex life forms come from? I have to admit to not knowing much about his argument. I had heard it before, but had yet to absorb the refutation. However, I need to note that I mentioned in the previous two installments that Jarvis has yet to present any evidence for intelligent design. None. And here we are in part three with still no drop of evidence to be found. He’s taking the typical tactic of attacking evolution, claiming he has evolution on the ropes, and then magically declaring intelligent design the winner. Even if he did manage to bloody evolution’s nose, which he has yet to do, that still doesn’t say a thing about intelligent design. He hasn’t presented any positive evidence to support it. We’re still waiting Jarvis.
As I said, I’m not knowledgeable enough about the “no new information” argument to take it on off the top of my head. So, I fired up Google and look what I found: new information!
Here are some snippets from a good explanation:
Individuals don’t evolve. Populations do. So in linking information theory to evolution, one must consider the information in the population, which creationists do not do.
It is important to realize that evolution occurs even if information is lost. It also occurs when information is gained or without any change in the amount of information at all. Thus no-new-information arguments do not actually address evolutionary theory. By focusing on individuals and not populations, no-new-information claims never even get close to disproving evolution. In fact, the actual claim, when applied to biology, is that the information capacity of an individual’s genome cannot increase. However, this claim is false because there are known types of mutations that can increase the length of the genome and thus its capacity to hold information.
Talkorigins has something to say, of course (do a search for the word “information” to find the post):
But what about the actual claim, that mutations *add* no new information? That’s questionable as well. Mutations aren’t always single changes in the bases of DNA. Duplications, transpositions and fusions are mutations that can also occur which increase the total length of DNA in the cell. Even a perfect duplication of a single gene will increase genetic information by some degree (And yes, even perfect duplications of a single gene can find an adaptive role).
Thank you, Jarvis. After my little bit of research and reading, I gained some new information. Amazing! Readers, please offer up any additional links or information you have.