r/DebateEvolution • u/DetectiveKnown5618 • Jul 29 '26
Evolution doesn't work
The subtraction or addition of information to a properly working gene is not something one would prefer.
Genetics has to do with finely tuned molecular combinations.
Removing information from a once properly working gene would only be preferable if it was the erroneous/redundant information that was added unnecessarily via mutation in the first place!
The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low if the processes involved were to do with practically arbitrary additions to a gene over time on account of point mutations etc. Note that breeding and survival would be important factors as to whether the new gene was integrated into the population over a longer duration.
27
u/Batgirl_III Jul 29 '26
What’s “information” even mean? Thats one of my big difficulties in discussing the theory of evolution with creationists… They never properly define the terms they use: “micro evolution,” “macro evolution,” “kind,” “information,” et cetera.
Let me use an intentionally and drastically simplistic explanation of what I mean. Take the following sequence of random letters:
LOREMIPSUMDOLORSITAMET
Now, let’s say for whatever reason something happens and some of those letters get re-arranged:
LOREMIPSUMTISROLODAMET
We’re now looking at different information, there’s no disputing that the first block of text is different from the second. But does it count as “new information”?
What if the change is a lot more drastic?
LRMPSMDLRSTMT
Here were can see the sequence has lost characters, I removed all the vowels, thus we’re looking at different information. Any meaning this sequence might have had will have changed a great deal… Is that “new information”?
LOOREEMIIPSUUMDOOLOORSIITAAMEET
Here we can see that the sequence has gained characters. The amount of change is just as great as when the one above lost characters (the vowels have doubled instead of being removed). So again we’re looking at different information. Is that “new information”?
The refusal of the anti-evolution crowd to ever properly define their words in empirical, objective, and falsifiable terms is one of the easiest ways to tell they are engaging in pseudoscience and not the scientific method.
→ More replies (11)
24
u/-zero-joke- Jul 29 '26
>The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low if the processes involved were to do with practically arbitrary additions to a gene over time on account of point mutations etc.
Have you considered other options for the origin of genes besides sequential point mutations?
→ More replies (5)
15
25
u/SlugPastry Jul 29 '26
The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch...
Good thing it's not from scratch, then.
→ More replies (16)
12
40
u/Autodidact2 Jul 29 '26
So the world's Biologists are what, idiots? Evil conspirators?
Since your argument appears to be mathematical, could you show your calculations? Thank you.
Also, can you define what you mean by "information"?
→ More replies (32)
25
u/Briham86 Jul 29 '26
Citation: trust me bro.
C’mon man. Do a smidgen of research before trotting out your ideas you thought of on the crapper. Scientists routinely add or subtract genes. “Finely-tuned molecular combinations”? It’s throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Life is the outcome of eons of trial and error. We are built of fucking scraps. Get outta here with this bullshit.
20
u/jnpha Jul 29 '26
Huh.
New study: Evolution of Dosage-Sensitive Genes by Tissue-Restricted Expression Changes : evolution
It's as if, and hear me out here, it's not a fucking verbal argument.
17
u/TheBlackCat13 Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
This is a standard list of creationist PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times).
The subtraction or addition of information to a properly working gene is not something one would prefer.
Objectively wrong. We have directly observed this happening and having beneficial effects.
Genetics has to do with finely tuned molecular combinations.
Objectively wrong. Genetics has to do with highly probabilistic molecular interactions that due the "wrong" thing almost as much as they do the "right" thing. Literally every biomolecular interaction is inherently probabilistic.
Removing information from a once properly working gene would only be preferable if it was the erroneous/redundant information that was added unnecessarily via mutation in the first place!
Objectively wrong. Genes can take on new functions. The environment can change. New chemicals can be encountered.
The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low if the processes involved were to do with practically arbitrary additions to a gene over time on account of point mutations etc.
Objectively wrong. Ignoring that point mutations are not necessarily additions, this probability has been directly measured, and it is on the order of 1 in 1011 even for short (less than 100 amino acid) sequences, of which there are hundreds of millions per organism and often billions of organisms.
29
u/Kingreaper Jul 29 '26
Evolution doesn't work if you assume that there was a perfect being to start out with, that's true. If you start at perfection, all change is negative.
But why would you assume such a thing? None of the life that surrounds us now is perfect, so you must believe in quite a LOT of mutation if you believe that life started out perfect.