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

[eisenreich]

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.

Full-text research paper, here.

 

[bob b]

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.

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?

 

[chair]

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?

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]

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

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:

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

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.

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?

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]

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...

 

[chair]

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...

"Truth", no matter how false, will never give up.

 

[Benjamin]

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

Jukia scientifically oriented? No, don't be silly! :thumb:

 

[eisenreich]

Jukia scientifically oriented? No, don't be silly! :thumb:

Says the boy who thinks dinosaur fossils were planted by Satan to deceive us..

 

[Jukia]

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.

 

[Benjamin]

Says the boy who thinks dinosaur fossils were planted by Satan to deceive us..

Says the guy who thinks ancient culture's drew dinosaurs based on random chance :http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp

Dinosaur fossils got there from rapid burial- that is flood evidence.

 

[Jukia]

Says the guy who thinks ancient culture's drew dinosaurs based on random chance :http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp

Dinosaur fossils got there from rapid burial- that is flood evidence.

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.

 

[Vision in Verse]

Says the guy who thinks ancient culture's drew dinosaurs based on random chance :http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/AnswersBook/dinosaurs19.asp

Dinosaur fossils got there from rapid burial- that is flood evidence.

http://www.cinemenium.com/dinosaur/gallery/Image_One.jpg
This is more convincing proof than that cave painting. But guess what, dinosaurs don't have to be around for people to draw them.

 

[Benjamin]

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.

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]

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.

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]

Says the boy who thinks dinosaur fossils were planted by Satan to deceive us..

Since when did Satan cause the global flood?

 

[Jukia]

Since when did Satan cause the global flood?

Since there was no such flood the answer is never.

 

[fool]

There's floods all the time.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

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.

 

[Jukia]

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.

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.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

My guess is that evolutionists are aware of it as well.

Were you aware of it (before I pointed it out)?