Posted: Feb 26, 2016 10:19 am
Shrunk wrote:I don't think so. What he seems to be saying is that this mutation does not qualify as "new information", according to a definition of "new information" that remains mysterious and unspecified.
Well, as I've asked creationists now for about 8 years:
Define: New. Give a rigorous measure of "newness".
For example, if a gene is duplicated and mutations happen in the duplicate, is it then new?
How many mutations must happen in that gene for it to be "new"? 2% of the sequence, 10%, 100% ? Why is that new?
Answer all of these questions and explain why those are the correct answers. Be the first creationist in history to do so.
Never recieved an answer. Most don't bother to even try and obfuscate, immediately after me asking this question I'm simply ignored.
In a thread on Larry Moran's blog where I ask the question, a creationist answers me by copy-pasting the answer given by an evolutionary biologist to a question about what constitutes a functional novelty, which is ironic both because itøs irrelevant to the creationist claim about informational novelty, but also apparently not knowing that by using the definition given by evolutionary biologists and applying it to information, he's fucking up his own case. Seriously.
