Even creationists realize their arguments are stupid, sometimes

This page has probably been around for some time, but I just recently found it myself. 

Answers in Genesis has a page devoted to “Arguments we think creationists should NOT use“.  Yes, you read that correctly!

The site then lists several arguments creationists should not use and explains why.  However, some of their explanations are, of course, in error.

For instance:

“There are no beneficial mutations.”

This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, “We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.”

Yet increases in information, no matter how you define information, have in fact been observed

  • increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
  • increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
  • novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
  • novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

Another example from AiG:

“No new species have been produced.”

This is not true—new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind,” and involves no new genetic information.

Wow!  First we have the creationists admitting that new species have in fact been observed to form!  I’m amazed at this admission.  However, they go on to qualify that it is within the “kind”.  The problem with the concept of “kinds” is that one can continually move the boundary between “kinds”.  And, of course, the genetic information bit was already covered above.

Anyhoo, it’s an interesting read.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Even creationists realize their arguments are stupid, sometimes”

  1. I can look into the other examples to see, but your first example says “increased genetic variety in a population”. Doesn’t that just mean there is a variety in the population, not necessarily that within the species new information has occured.

    I saw your referenced talkorgins page and the reason they give these examples is they themselves say they don’t know what we mean by this claim. Here is what we mean. Duplications and mutations do not add NEW information to the genome. Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information (whether original or duplicated). Neither of them adds new information.
    For a more detailed explanation, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/01/feedback-new-information

  2. I saw your referenced talkorgins page and the reason they give these examples is they themselves say they don’t know what we mean by this claim. Here is what we mean. Duplications and mutations do not add NEW information to the genome. Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information (whether original or duplicated). Neither of them adds new information.

    You’re not seeing he obvious problem here. Duplicate a section of genetic code and then allow it to mutate. Repeat thousands of times as the duplicated, ever-mutating section of genetic code is passed on and eventually spreads, so that we have two populations of organism: one that is not descended from the duplicated-code organism and one that is. Compare the genome of both populations, and what do you find? One not only has ‘more information’ than the other, but that that added information has now differentiated to quite a degree.

    When you talk about adding NEW ‘information to the genome’, what exactly do you mean?

  3. Justin, if you had really looked for the information on Talk Origins, you would have seen it explained quite well. There are several references on Talk Origins and elsewhere that show that new genetic information can arise in several ways, no matter what exactly the creationists mean by “new information”.

  4. Beepgrori Says:

    Hi
    Nice site!

    Bye

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: