DNA mutations only lose information? WTF!

[Lord Insanity]

OK this occured at work today. One of the delivery guys and I were talking and he mentioned that Evolution was a scam. Of course he rolled out the obvious "Its just a theory" and "It keeps changing" arguments. I politely (I do have to work with the guy) corrected him to his satisfaction (or at least inability to retort.) However the one that I was not equiped to give a brief enough answer to (before he had to leave) was: "DNA doesn't actually gain any information or create new info it only loses it. Those viruses that are "super" viruses and immune to drugs are actually weaker viruses that have lost the ability to absorb said drugs." Yes, he actually said that. Unfortunatly I don't know how to explain why this is wrong in a short enought time and without drawing a simplistic diagram, which I can't do at work. The closest thing I found in the database was this here and that doesn't really tell me what I need to know. So can anyone with some more knowledge on the subject and who has given it more thought come up with good way of refuting this to someone with little scientific knowledge. I would appreciate the help.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You can have point mutations that add extra bases or trans-coding errors or any number of different faults that the proofreading machinery misses. That may produce something that kills the organism there and then. Every now and then, though, you get extra information added and eventually whole new chromosomes.

[drachefly]

At the very simplest, gene duplication is fairly common as mutations go. Once you've got a spare copy lying around, any changes that you make to it whatsoever, including deleting most of the thing... all that creates new information.

[DPDarkPrimus]

If DNA can't gain any information, then how come different organisms have DNA strands of different lengths?

[The Vortex Empire]

If DNA can't gain any information, then how come different organisms have DNA strands of different lengths?

Because the shorter strands have lost more, duh.
Seriously, how can someone be that idiotic? If DNA can only lose information, then that would mean that we are less advanced than the first bacteria to evolve. Yeah, that's not true.

[drachefly]

Well, he was concluding that we didn't evolve, so that's not an inconsistency in itself.

[Darth Servo]

Ah, so he's memorized every creationist catch phrase in the book. Probably already beyond help.

DNA doesn't actually gain any information or create new info it only loses it

Bullshit. DNA increases the amount of information it carries by duplication of genes. Crossing over (chromosome exchange arms) isn't always equal and one chromosome would gain an extra copy of the gene. Since it already has one copy, the new copy is free to mutate to its (metaphorical) heart's content without costing the organism much if anything.

Many genes are simply a new arrangement of older genes. Functional units get shared all the time. Gene 1 has subunits A, B, C and D. Gene 2 has subunits E, F, G and H. Shuffle things up and you now have gene 3 with subunits A, D, F, and G and a whole new function.

[Kristoff]

Chromosome abnormalities like polyploidy or aneuploidy result in extra genetic information that can change without any risk for survival of organism. As good as I remember, secondary metabolism of plants evolved that way. (Plants are more likely to survive chromosome abnormalities than animals, actually many plants, including crops, are more or less natural polyploids.)

Viruses do not absorb anything in active way because they do not have metabolism of their own and are host-dependent. Antiviral drugs interfere with virus "life-cycle" so when they cease to work it means something changed eg. we got new mutation of virus with minuscule variations at molecular level but big enough to make the difference.

[Darth Servo]

Chromosome abnormalities like polyploidy or aneuploidy result in extra genetic information that can change without any risk for survival of organism. As good as I remember, secondary metabolism of plants evolved that way. (Plants are more likely to survive chromosome abnormalities than animals, actually many plants, including crops, are more or less natural polyploids.)

Plants are a HELL of a lot more likely to survive and reproduce with polyploidy than animals. Animals usually can't tolerate polyploidy at all. Down syndrome is caused by having three copies of chromosome 21. One therory for this is plants don't have a definitive "body size" they way animals do and as such, overdose of a particular enzyme or structural protein doesn't harm plants as much as they do animals.

[Darth Wong]

OK this occured at work today. One of the delivery guys and I were talking and he mentioned that Evolution was a scam. Of course he rolled out the obvious "Its just a theory" and "It keeps changing" arguments. I politely (I do have to work with the guy) corrected him to his satisfaction (or at least inability to retort.) However the one that I was not equiped to give a brief enough answer to (before he had to leave) was: "DNA doesn't actually gain any information or create new info it only loses it. Those viruses that are "super" viruses and immune to drugs are actually weaker viruses that have lost the ability to absorb said drugs." Yes, he actually said that. Unfortunatly I don't know how to explain why this is wrong in a short enought time and without drawing a simplistic diagram, which I can't do at work. The closest thing I found in the database was this here and that doesn't really tell me what I need to know. So can anyone with some more knowledge on the subject and who has given it more thought come up with good way of refuting this to someone with little scientific knowledge. I would appreciate the help.

By his idiotic logic, if I take the letters ESHSKYUIBTLE and rearrange them into "The sky is blue", I have not added any information. And that's leaving aside the fact that you can add extra genes.

[Lord Insanity]

Darth Wong Wrote:

By his idiotic logic, if I take the letters ESHSKYUIBTLE and rearrange them into "The sky is blue", I have not added any information. And that's leaving aside the fact that you can add extra genes.

Wow, I am an idiot for not thinking of it like that in the first place. Well that coupled with the other replies (thanks guys), should let me politely explain this when I know he'll bring it up again tomorrow. I actually forgot to mention the funniest part in my original post; when I started refuting the "Evolutuion scam" argument he said "I can't belive you fall for that, I thought you were pretty good with science stuff."

[Darth Servo]

Darth Wong Wrote:

By his idiotic logic, if I take the letters ESHSKYUIBTLE and rearrange them into "The sky is blue", I have not added any information. And that's leaving aside the fact that you can add extra genes.

Wow, I am an idiot for not thinking of it like that in the first place. Well that coupled with the other replies (thanks guys), should let me politely explain this when I know he'll bring it up again tomorrow. I actually forgot to mention the funniest part in my original post; when I started refuting the "Evolutuion scam" argument he said "I can't belive you fall for that, I thought you were pretty good with science stuff."

The only problem is that he'll probably trot out the old (and invalid) "a monkey on a typewriter will never produce Shakespear" nonsense. The response is that isn't how evolution works. A better analogy is that you have the monkey attempt to type a given novel. There is a 1 in 26 chance that each letter will be in the right place or just over 3.8%. You take take the letters that are in the correct position and lock them in place. Then have the monkey type again. Once again, 3.8% of the unlocked random letters will now be in the correct position. Lock those in place. Repeat about 30 times and you have any novel you want. The only difference between that and evolution is evolution doesn't have an actual target.

[Walsh]

At this point in an argument, I usually link to flavobacterium k172, since the random addition of genetic data is exactly how it was spawned, and it simultaneously blows the "no beneficial mutations" argument out of the water. Also, since the bacterium feeds exclusively on nylon, it can't have evolved any earlier than 1935.

Since you're talking to him face to face, it's much harder to get that information across to him, though.

[Admiral Valdemar]

These people are quite adept at ignoring such examples as Nylon eating bacteria or superbugs resistant to new antibiotics. They simply see it as an example of a bug using already coded information to do a new job, so in other words, despite the digesting of Nylon requiring a whole new metabolic pathway, the bacterium already had that built in and was just waiting for humans to create their god given artificial fibre.

[mr friendly guy]

Those viruses that are "super" viruses and immune to drugs are actually weaker viruses that have lost the ability to absorb said drugs.".

Presumably he means bacteria, since they tend to be mentioned in the news more than viruses. For some bacteria, say some penicillin resistant bacteria, they are resistant because they produce a new enzyme which breaks down penicillin. Thats clearly new information.

Now for some viruses, they maybe come more virulent because they lose information, for example surface antigen or pre core mutants for Hepatitis B. However as in my above example, clearly DNA can add new information.

[Surlethe]

This is an argument best to be prepared against, since it seems to be rapidly becoming a creationist favorite. You see, this is the only reason they can give explaining the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution: evolution 'within kinds' does not increase genetic information, while evolution 'between kinds' necessitates an increase (or change in) genetic information, and therefore is not possible. This is why, for example, it's the line of the Answers in Genesis organization.

In general, the best way, in my experience, to combat this argument is to repeat Darth Wong's argument; also, you could link them to the talkorigins archive's article on mutation.

[Darth Servo]

These people are quite adept at ignoring such examples as Nylon eating bacteria or superbugs resistant to new antibiotics.

All too true. My "favorite" <cough, cough> ID moron continues insisting that primitive eyes are impossible even after being shown a video featuring animals alive today that have such primitive eyes.

[Ted C]

Short response: gene-duplication is a common process that adds to the genome. Once a duplicate gene exists, mutation can act on it while the other copy continues to do the original job. Presto - information is added via mutation.

[Lord Insanity]

OK, well at work today, the first thing he brings up was a "science-like special" that he watched at church. Apparently according to this "science-like special" Adam and Eve were "perfect humans" and the further away we "evolve" from them, the more information is lost resulting in genetic diversity. It took everything I had (again I do have to work with the guy) not to just blurt out "you're congregation has gotten stupider for having watched that." I did my level headed best to politely inform him about the "nylon eating" bacteria and surprisingly he actually seemed to understand what that meant for the nonsense he was relaying. Maybe I am just being optimistic and he simply wrote me off as not worth trying to "inform" anymore. Either way I got the impression he won't be discussing that particular topic with me again. Again, thanks for the help guys, though I can't help but think we're going to start seeing a lot of stupid coming from this alleged "special."

[Trytostaydead]

Just to dick around, there ARE some bacteria that "lose" information, well, more like pop-out is a better expression, or down-regulate, but that's not really losing. But I highly doubt he was thinking of any of those.

[Darth Wong]

OK, well at work today, the first thing he brings up was a "science-like special" that he watched at church. Apparently according to this "science-like special" Adam and Eve were "perfect humans" and the further away we "evolve" from them, the more information is lost resulting in genetic diversity.

Yeah, I guess that explains why cranial capacity gets smaller and smaller as you go farther back into the paleontological timeline of upright-standing primate fossils. The earliest "perfect" humans apparently had tiny brains.

[Darth Servo]

though I can't help but think we're going to start seeing a lot of stupid coming from this alleged "special."

We already are and have been for some time. Approximately 99.9999999% of creationist "arguments" are simply copy and paste jobs of other creationists who copied it from other creationists, etc, etc, etc all of whom ignored the rebuttals to their bullshit.

[Lord Insanity]

Yeah, I guess that explains why cranial capacity gets smaller and smaller as you go farther back into the paleontological timeline of upright-standing primate fossils. The earliest "perfect" humans apparently had tiny brains.

Well maybe the people who fall for this crap are closer to "perfect" then.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I really can't fathom who falls for that "The first humans were perfect" crap. Does that mean that, given a long enough timeline, we'll all be totally non-functional at a genetic level, or at the very least, vegetables?

And I can only wonder what caused such degeneration. Gee, wouldn't have anything to do with the first people being ONLY two people. Not a genetic bottleneck, no siree.

[Lusankya]

I really can't fathom who falls for that "The first humans were perfect" crap. Does that mean that, given a long enough timeline, we'll all be totally non-functional at a genetic level, or at the very least, vegetables?

And I can only wonder what caused such degeneration. Gee, wouldn't have anything to do with the first people being ONLY two people. Not a genetic bottleneck, no siree.

Don't be silly. It's clearly because we've fallen from Grace. The only solution is to bring on the rapture before we lose all of the DNA that the Lord God gave us.

And it also explains why we all look different - different races lost different bits of their gentic code. So Asians lost the bit that makes you grow facial hair, and black people lost the bit that makes you white. Naturally, white people are the closest to the divine ideal, because we burn in the sun (which is like Satan's fire, dontcha know, so burning shows that we shun it) and can grow beards, just like Jesus (unless they're women, but women aren't eligible for heaven anyway, because they're girls. With girly parts).

See? It all makes PERFECT SENSE!


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!