Joined: Oct. 2007
Verbatim re-post. I fully realize that cryptoguru's schedule is full up with telling evolutionists how wrong they are, but perhaps they will find the time to explain what they mean when they say "new and novel genetic material", or even determine whether or not one specific concrete example of a mutated nucleotide sequence qualifies as "new or novel genetic material". Or perhaps they will continue to make noise about how wrong evolutionists are. I dunno.
|Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 18 2015,03:46)|
|What does "new information" look like?|
New information is new and novel genetic material that codes for new function or traits in the organism i.e. not a point mutation in a control gene that switches other pre-existing functionality off/on or a trade/inheriting of genetic material between bacteria ...NEW genetic material that codes for new function; this has never been observed.
"Never been observed", you say. Well, I say, show me a person who's never heard of a kinkajou, and I'll show you a person who wouldn't recognize a kinkajou if a rabid one was chewing on their face. And in my experience, it's awfully damned common for Creationists who claim that thus-and-such has never been observed, do not actually know what thus-and-such would look like, and therefore those Creationists don't actually have any valid grounds for asserting that thus-and-such "has never been observed". So I want to drill down on your verbiage here, cryptoguru, and see whether you actually do know what you're talking about.
You have a definition of "new information". Groovy. I note that your definition of "new information" is sufficiently imprecise that it doesn't provide any way to tell whether or not a given string of nucleotides qualifies as "new information" under your definition. So let's see if we can dispel the vagueness, shall we?
Your definition of "new information" includes a clause about "new and novel genetic material". Why must the "genetic material" of "new information" be both "new" and "novel"? I ask because "new" and "novel" strike me as basically synonymous, hence, using both words is gratiutous redundancy. But perhaps you weren't being redundant; perhaps you actually are using distinct referents for "new" and "novel", such that the two words are not, in fact, gratuitously redundant. Please explain how "genetic material" which is "new" differs from "genetic material" which is "novel". Is it possible for "genetic material" to be "new" without also being "novel"? Is it possible for "genetic material" to be "novel" without also being "new"?
What does "new and novel genetic material" look like? I'm going to provide some concrete data to work with. Here's an arbitrary nucleotide sequence, with a randomly-picked nucleotide—the thymine in the 4th codon—colored red:
gcc tac agg gat cgt ggg gac ctt acg aat ggc ctt ttt gac tat tct tcg aat cta agc tca gca tca ttc ccg tct acg gga agt ccc ttc cca ata cat atc ctc ggc acc gca ctt gca ggc tca cgc ttc gcg tca ttt agg tca
That sequence of codons yields the following sequence of amino acids, with the 4th amino acid colored red on account of it's the AA that's yielded by the codon with the red-colored nucleotide:
alanine, tyrosine, arginine, aspartic acid, arginine, glycine, aspartic acid, leucine, threonine, asparagine, glycine, leucine, phenylalanine, aspartic acid, tyrosine, serine, serine, asparagine, leucine, serine, serine, alanine, serine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, glycine, serine, proline, phenylalanine, proline, isoleucine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, glycine, threonine, alanine, leucine, alanine, glycine, serine, arginine, phenylalanine, alanine, serine, phenylalanine, arginine, serine
One possible mutation of that sequence would be if the thymine in the 4th codon was deleted, like so (and the thereby-altered 4th codon is colored red here):
gcc tac agg gac gtg ggg acc tta cga atg gcc ttt ttg act att ctt cga atc taa gct cag cat cat tcc cgt cta cgg gaa gtc cct tcc caa tac ata tcc tcg gca ccg cac ttg cag gct cac gct tcg cgt cat tta ggt ca
Since a codon is three nucleotides in a row, deleting that one nucleotide from the 4th codon in the original sequence doesn't just change that 4th codon; it also has the effect of changing pretty much every codon after that altered 4th codon. This, in turn, yields a very different sequence of amino acids than the original, unmutated sequence. The red-colored AAs are ones which don't occur at all in the original, unmutated sequence:
alanine, tyrosine, arginine, aspartic acid, valine, glycine, threonine, leucine, arginine, methionine, alanine, phenylalanine, leucine, threonine, isoleucine, leucine, arginine, isoleucine, [end], alanine, glutamine, histidine, histidine, serine, arginine, leucine, arginine, glutamic acid, valine, proline, serine, glutamine, tyrosine, isoleucine, serine, serine, alanine, proline, histidine, leucine, glutamine, alanine, histidine, alanine, serine, arginine, histidine, leucine, glycine, [???]
Does the mutated nucleotide sequence qualify as "new and novel genetic material"? Does the mutated nucleotide sequence contain any "new and novel genetic material"?