bob b, Does this count as a mutation producing 'new information'?

eisenreich

eisenreich

New member
A Single mutation turns a one chambered heart into a fully functional two chambered heart.

So is information added? Or is this somehow a case of information loss...?

The expanded cardiac field in Ets1/2-activated mutants results in a proportion of animals having a functional, two-chambered heart. "The conversion of a simple heart tube into a complex heart was discovered by chance, but has general implications for the evolutionary origins of animal diversity and complexity", says Mike Levine, a co-author of the paper.
Click to expand...

Full-text research paper, here.
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
eisenreich said:
A Single mutation turns a one chambered heart into a fully functional two chambered heart.
So is information added? Or is this somehow a case of information loss...?
Full-text research paper, here.
Click to expand...

It may be a case of gain, loss or neither. There is insufficient information in either article to determine which alternative is correct.

In addition, the technical paper itself did not seem to claim "fully functional two chambered heart". Did I miss something?

BTW, the technical article appeared 3 years earlier than the press release. Is it possible that we need to wait for an upcoming journal article in order to analyze what really was discovered?
 
C

chair

Well-known member
bob b said:
It may be a case of gain, loss or neither. There is insufficient information in either article to determine which alternative is correct.

In addition, the technical paper itself did not seem to claim "fully functional two chambered heart". Did I miss something?

BTW, the technical article appeared 3 years earlier than the press release. Is it possible that we need to wait for an upcoming journal article in order to analyze what really was discovered?
Click to expand...

The journal article reported what really was discovered. That's what journal articles are about. They may have more articles on the topic as they learn more. Scientists are not in the business of press releases - they publish articles in scientific journals.
 
eisenreich

eisenreich

New member
bob b said:
It may be a case of gain, loss or neither. There is insufficient information in either article to determine which alternative is correct.
Click to expand...
Since you've claimed that mutations cannot produce new information, I have feeling which category you're going to chalk this one under.. Since your world-view hinges on a young earth, people here should not expect these kind of admissions from you. Shows how non-biased you are in your research and analysis... :rolls eyes smiley:

bob b said:
In addition, the technical paper itself did not seem to claim "fully functional two chambered heart". Did I miss something?
Click to expand...
Yes, you most likely did because the language in the technical paper is, well technical. Look around for the term "tunicate heart morphogenesis".

Perhaps Johnny/Jukia/someone scientifically oriented could decipher the rest.

bob b said:
BTW, the technical article appeared 3 years earlier than the press release. Is it possible that we need to wait for an upcoming journal article in order to analyze what really was discovered?
Click to expand...
The PR machine for science is less advanced than the one for Intelligent Design. Maybe because real scientists are more concerned about science than press releases.

Just a thought.
 
Punisher1984

Punisher1984

New member
And one more score for Darwin!

When are you creationists going to give up? The scientific evidence clearly points to evolution! This research project is only a drop in the bucket; a bucket that's about to overflow very soon...
 
C

chair

Well-known member
Punisher1984 said:
And one more score for Darwin!

When are you creationists going to give up? The scientific evidence clearly points to evolution! This research project is only a drop in the bucket; a bucket that's about to overflow very soon...
Click to expand...
"Truth", no matter how false, will never give up.
 
J

Jukia

New member
2 of my kids used to collect Ciona when they worked at Woods Hole. Pretty interesting animal I think.
Since I think that the "information" issue is a red herring thrown about by creationists who have no real knowledge on the issue, I have some problem responding. However, if the issue is whether or not it addresses the question of "What happened in the evolutionary process, did it go from 1 chamber to 1 1/2 chambers on the way to 2? And what good would that do the organism?" well, perhaps it does address that issue. Seems like the process can bypass the 1/2 a chamber stage. And if "different information" can equal "more information" then it would seem to be both different and more.
 
Last edited:
Benjamin

Benjamin

BANNED
Banned
Jukia said:
Wrong again, keep trying.

Ok, so I decided I was sorry for this snotty remark. I went and looked at the AiG reference. I'm not sorry. What a pile of nonsense.
Click to expand...

Nonsense would be me teaching that something came from nothing- aka Big Bang.

Or teaching that the chemical elements evolved. nonsense.

WOW you religious fanatics are seriously crazy.
 
Vision in Verse

Vision in Verse

New member
Benjamin said:
Nonsense would be me teaching that something came from nothing- aka Big Bang.

Or teaching that the chemical elements evolved. nonsense.

WOW you religious fanatics are seriously crazy.
Click to expand...
Your willful ignorance comes into play again. I have advice for you. STUDY these concepts. LEARN them and form your own educated opinion. Question everything.
 
One Eyed Jack

One Eyed Jack

New member
What many evolutionists don't like to admit is the fact that the vast majority of fossils are known to have been formed by flooding. I wouldn't call it a secret (paleontologists are well aware of this) -- but it's not exactly advertised, either.
 
J

Jukia

New member
One Eyed Jack said:
What many evolutionists don't like to admit is the fact that the vast majority of fossils are known to have been formed by flooding. I wouldn't call it a secret (paleontologists are well aware of this) -- but it's not exactly advertised, either.
Click to expand...
My guess is that evolutionists are aware of it as well. However it is quite a jump from that to one big monster world wide flood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top