One of the more “sophisticated” creationists misconceptions about evolution/natural selection (they often conflate the two) is that new information can never be created. This actually has no sophistication in it at all, but it sounds fancy and for that reason it helps to trick a good number of people. It’s especially a shame when it confounds those who want to learn some actual science. So here’s a simple example of “novel information” being added to a genome.
Scientists Decode Cancer Patients’ DNA
ST. LOUIS, Nov. 10 (UPI) — Scientists in St. Louis say they have decoded the complete DNA of a cancer patient and traced her disease — acute myelogenous leukemia — to its genetic roots.
The research team at the Genome Sequencing Center and the Siteman Cancer Center at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis said the first-of-its-kind achievement involved sequencing the genome of the patient — a woman in her 50s who ultimately died of her disease — and the genome of her leukemia cells, to identify genetic changes unique to her cancer.
“Our work demonstrates the power of sequencing entire genomes to discover novel cancer-related mutations,” said senior author Richard Wilson, director of Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center. “A genome-wide understanding of cancer, which is now possible with faster, less expensive DNA sequencing technology, is the foundation for developing more effective ways to diagnose and treat cancer.”
The study appears in the journal Nature.
When a cancer occurs, it is the usually the result of the loss of cell cycle control. Instead of the cell being told to die, it continues to replicate; it may lose its contact inhibition, meaning when an area gets too crowded, cells continue to replicate – this should not happen. There are other ways cancers occur, but they aren’t important for my purposes. What is important is the fact that a change in information in a genome is what caused the cancer in this woman in question. Let’s be clear from the get-go: this is not evolution. Individuals do not evolve. But what this does show is that novel changes occur to genomes all the time.
Recently, Steve Jones said evolution in humans is coming to an end. I haven’t heard his entire presentation, so I’m guessing he thinks it’s actually just slowing down, not ending. But either way, he’s wrong. But I bring him up because the reason why he’s wrong is interesting. He says that the fewer mutations present in reproducing males are contributing to less diversity in offspring. He says this because younger men are reproducing more than older men and older men, especially 35 and older, have more mutations in their DNA. (He later refutes his point by saying survival rates are up, inherently suggesting mutation rate must be up).
So why is this important? It’s important because mutations equal “novel information”. That’s what happens when cancers occur. That’s why the research team sequenced the genome of the woman plus the genome of her cancer cells. There are differences and those differences result in markedly different things. In this case, it’s unfortunate that cancer occurred. In other cases, it’s genetic diversity.
This is a bit of a roundabout way of explaining this, but I hope the point comes across. Cancer is a change in information. It’s obviously a bad one and it doesn’t get passed on in somatic cells, but let’s focus purely on the point: it is a change in information. It is a creation of new information. Although it is bad, it is new and it results in genotypic and phenotypic changes.
Filed under: Creationism, Evolution | Tagged: cancer, Evolution, genome, genotypic, information, novel, novel information, phenotypic, steve jones |
For the Sake of Science 
I’m no creationist, but I don’t think even the most dedicated creationst would deny that the change to a healthy cell to a cancerous cell is ‘novel’; but it hardly constitutes the sort of beneficial change we would hope occurs as he result of evolution!
A automobile accident can cause a change in the information present in the structure of an automobile – but no one would contend that such accidents are capable of producing automobiles.
All “novel information” can possibly mean is a change in amino acid sequence. That’s precisely what is occurring here. That is precisely what occurs within evolutionary mutations. A slight difference in coding is often deleterious. More often, it is neutral. It is occasionally advantageous. See my post How Natural Selection is Cumulative.
Jack points out a useful fact there. A creationist will always switch from just talking about information to talking about complex, specified information (to borrow from some prominent IDists) when confronted with the fact that mutations can produce new information. And then, when you start to talk about how natural selection specifies what information will be preserved and what won’t, they then say that natural selection is removing information (i.e. switch back to the original definition).
Creationists are more slippery on their definitions of information than they are on their definition of a created kind.
For the record, Jack is a creationist 2.0. He just calls himself an IDist, as if there is an actual distinction.
All “novel information” can possibly mean is a change in amino acid sequence. That’s precisely what is occurring here. That is precisely what occurs within evolutionary mutations. A slight difference in coding is often deleterious. More often, it is neutral. It is occasionally advantageous. See my post How Natural Selection is Cumulative.
No one doubts that mutations occur, or that they constitute a change in genetic information. What is absurd is to contend that an incidental change such as the one we see in this example, leading to a plainly deleterious effect, is evidence for change that produces obviously beneficial and purposeful structures in an organism.
It’s rather like saying that a process which randomly switches letters in you post would be capable of writing the posts for you; plainly not.
For the record, Jack is a creationist 2.0. He just calls himself an IDist, as if there is an actual distinction.
For the record, Jack was an evolutionist when Michael was still drooling in his baby food.
I never claimed a change in information was evidence for anything other than what it is – a change in information. It takes the non-random process of natural selection to produce anything of any complexity.
Again, if you do want to see a change in information, a tweak really, you should see my post on how natural selection is cumulative. That’s random changes in ATP preserved and propagated by natural selection.
I never claimed a change in information was evidence for anything other than what it is – a change in information. It takes the non-random process of natural selection to produce anything of any complexity.
Well, at least you admit the example does nothing to demonstrate evolution, I will give you that.
I did not say that. Did you fail at being an English major as well?
This doesn’t demonstrate structure. That wasn’t the purpose of this post. The fact that you thought it relevant to make a point of this makes you another creationist troll.
Go finish your biology classes.
I did not say that. Did you fail at being an English major as well?
This doesn’t demonstrate structure. That wasn’t the purpose of this post. The fact that you thought it relevant to make a point of this makes you another creationist troll.
Go finish your biology classes.
I can always tell when a persons logic has failed, because they resort to name calling and insults.
Be that it may, I merely pointed out this does nothing to advance the idea of evolution and you agreed; and now have agreed again. I am not sure why you would be bothered by a point of agreement.
Stop flailing around the point. You want a change in information. You have it. If you want to stop flailing, go see my cumulative post. That actually deals with your issue.
Stop flailing around the point. You want a change in information. You have it. If you want to stop flailing, go see my cumulative post. That actually deals with your issue.
I’m not flailing at all; indeed, I demonstrated my point and you agreed with it – that hardly constitutes ‘flailing’. And I already dealt with your other post, it doesn’t advance your point either.