Creationism cannot explain new information
rossum
Creationists sometimes argue that evolution cannot create any new
information. Unfortunately for creationists, creationism cannot
create any new information either. All creationism can do is to
create is *old* informaton, or rather duplicate old information - not
create new information.
If God is omniscient then God knows everything, and has known it for
an extemely long time. In particular God has known all the
information contained in all the DNA of every living organism since
long before there were any living organisms.
Hence, all the information we see in any organism cannot be newly
created information, it must be old information copied by God from His
own knowledge.
The argument from information fails for creationists; creationism
cannot explain the origin of new information because according to
creationism there can be no new information.
Any attempt to exlain the origin of the 'new' information within the
mind of God requires an explanation for the origin of God, and that is
not a question that creationists seem prepared to address.
rossum
All-seeing-I
This IS.... quite amusing.
Variation within the same "kind" of life produces "new" information
(and a new variation) by rearranging the information that already
exists.
Sometimes new information can even be added by that rearrangment.
"out with the old, in with the new".
a1 + a2 + c + d
aaa + c + d
aaa is the new information.
rossum
So it is something that God didn't know? You are saying that God is
not omniscient?
rossum
All-seeing-I
No. I'm saying you are a BOOB.
Greg G.
How is any mutation not new information? A becomes B in one specimen.
B is passed down, but A is still present in the population at large
passed down by others. There is then two variations of a gene where
there was one before. That's new information.
It's possible for a gene to be copied twice. One can then mutate to a
different function without affecting the old function of the original
gene. That's new information.
g...@risky-biz.com
There's a problem. If we are all descendants of a single pair of
humans, each with a maximum of two alleles at each gene location, what
if we find E? Or F? Or more? The theory of evolution has no problems
here: we are not all descended from a single pair, and mutations can
create more allele variations. Standard creationism has a problem with
any gene locus with more than 4 alleles.
Dan Listermann
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7895a3ef-f3c1-455f...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
ASI doesn't believe in useful mutations, just bad ones.
.
Dan Listermann
<g...@risky-biz.com> wrote in message
news:6158e38e-dec9-4b70...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Naa, "goddidit," just ask them. . .
.
rossum
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
I am completely overwhelmed by the intellectual rigour of your reply.
Did God know the information beforehand? If He did then the
information is not new. If He did not then He is not omniscient.
Answer the question please: did God know the information beforehand?
rossum
All-seeing-I
Have you asked Him?
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
rossum
Yes. Now I want your answer so I can compare the two. Did God know
the infomration beforehand? Yes or no?
rossum
gregwrld
And any mutation adds information to
a species gene pool, thus accessible
variation.
gregwrld
Kalkidas
news:5oeij5dtlskh74r3o...@4ax.com...
> My thanks to chemist99a from CARM for this idea.
>
> Creationists sometimes argue that evolution cannot create any new
> information. Unfortunately for creationists, creationism cannot
> create any new information either. All creationism can do is to
> create is *old* informaton, or rather duplicate old information - not
> create new information.
>
> If God is omniscient then God knows everything, and has known it for
> an extemely long time. In particular God has known all the
> information contained in all the DNA of every living organism since
> long before there were any living organisms.
>
> Hence, all the information we see in any organism cannot be newly
> created information, it must be old information copied by God from His
> own knowledge.
So what is the problem? Your "creationist" explanation gives the source of
all information, including what we would call "new" information due to our
lack of omniscience. Darwinism, on the other hand, cannot give the source of
information, because it refuses to take God into account and therefore must
make an unsubstantiated claim that random variation and natural selection
somehow create "new" information.
> The argument from information fails for creationists; creationism
> cannot explain the origin of new information because according to
> creationism there can be no new information.
But you just explained it!
> Any attempt to exlain the origin of the 'new' information within the
> mind of God requires an explanation for the origin of God, and that is
> not a question that creationists seem prepared to address.
But you just answered it: there is no new information because God is eternal
and omniscient. So, what's the problem?
bpuharic
>
>So what is the problem? Your "creationist" explanation gives the source of
>all information, including what we would call "new" information due to our
>lack of omniscience. Darwinism, on the other hand, cannot give the source of
>information, because it refuses to take God into account and therefore must
>make an unsubstantiated claim that random variation and natural selection
>somehow create "new" information.
>
if god explained something, creationists, to coin a phrase, would have
put a man on the moon 2000 years ago.
god in science is a useless idea. it's not a new idea; it's the oldest
idea for explaining nature we have
and it's wrong
teresita
> Darwinism, on the other hand, cannot give the source of information,
> because it refuses to take God into account and therefore must make an
> unsubstantiated claim that random variation and natural selection
> somehow create "new" information.
1. Darwinism doesn't "refuse" to take God into account, surely if there
were repeatable observations of God available they would be taken into
account.
2. If a species carries information that makes it adapted to a forest,
and that forest dies and becomes a desert, the survivors will carry new
information that adapts them to life in the desert. The information is
not "created" it is merely that the information which permits survival is
the only information that is transmitted to following generations.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Kalkidas
news:hhdol...@news1.newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:50:47 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
>
>> Darwinism, on the other hand, cannot give the source of information,
>> because it refuses to take God into account and therefore must make an
>> unsubstantiated claim that random variation and natural selection
>> somehow create "new" information.
>
> 1. Darwinism doesn't "refuse" to take God into account, surely if there
> were repeatable observations of God available they would be taken into
> account.
"Repeatable" observations of the supreme omniscient eternal being are
certainly available, on God's terms, but the process is distasteful to
Darwinists, materialists and atheists in general, because they do not want
to submit to anything greater than themselves. Therefore, Darwinism refuses,
I repeat, refuses to take God into account.
> 2. If a species carries information that makes it adapted to a forest,
> and that forest dies and becomes a desert, the survivors will carry new
> information that adapts them to life in the desert. The information is
> not "created" it is merely that the information which permits survival is
> the only information that is transmitted to following generations.
The survivors already had the information, otherwise they wouldn't have
survived. The information is not "new". In any case, as the original poster
pointed out, no information is strictly new, since its source, God, is
eternal and omniscient.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> "teresita" <ruby...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hhdol...@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:50:47 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> >> Darwinism, on the other hand, cannot give the source of information,
> >> because it refuses to take God into account and therefore must make an
> >> unsubstantiated claim that random variation and natural selection
> >> somehow create "new" information.
>
> > 1. Darwinism doesn't "refuse" to take God into account, surely if there
> > were repeatable observations of God available they would be taken into
> > account.
>
> "Repeatable" observations of the supreme omniscient eternal being are
> certainly available, on God's terms, but the process is distasteful to
> Darwinists, materialists and atheists in general, because they do not want
> to submit to anything greater than themselves. Therefore, Darwinism refuses,
> I repeat, refuses to take God into account.
You are confusing science with "Darwinism" - whatever you mean by the
term. Science does not take God into account, regardless of the
religious beliefs or lack of them of the scientists.
If you think I'm wrong, just produce any scientific paper ever
published in any journal which factors God as part of the scientific
argument.
Why not educate yourself in the nature of science?
RF
Prof Weird
> "rossum" <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5oeij5dtlskh74r3o...@4ax.com...
>
> > My thanks to chemist99a from CARM for this idea.
>
> > Creationists sometimes argue that evolution cannot create any new
> > information. �Unfortunately for creationists, creationism cannot
> > create any new information either. �All creationism can do is to
> > create is *old* informaton, or rather duplicate old information - not
> > create new information.
>
> > If God is omniscient then God knows everything, and has known it for
> > an extemely long time. �In particular God has known all the
> > information contained in all the DNA of every living organism since
> > long before there were any living organisms.
>
> > Hence, all the information we see in any organism cannot be newly
> > created information, it must be old information copied by God from His
> > own knowledge.
>
> So what is the problem? Your "creationist" explanation gives the source of
> all information, including what we would call "new" information due to our
> lack of omniscience.
So whether information is 'new' or not depends solely on what WE
know ?
In that case, the need for an external source of it is negated, since
there is no way to determine whether what we call 'new information' is
actually new or not, and thus the creotard argument from
Misinformation falls to its own incoherence.
> Darwinism, on the other hand, cannot give the source of
> information, because it refuses to take God into account and therefore must
> make an unsubstantiated claim that random variation and natural selection
> somehow create "new" information.
By your own blitherings, whether God exists or not, or whether He/She/
It/They is taken into account or not is IRRELEVANT for determining
whether information is 'new' or not (since humans aren't omniscient,
we have NO WAY OF KNOWING whether any bit of 'new information' is
actually new or not)
Too bad that random variation plus selection CAN generate 'new'
information - has been demonstrated and OBSERVED several times.
(at this point, creotards just start waving hands frantically and
change what they mean by 'new' as the need suits them).
> > The argument from information fails for creationists; creationism
> > cannot explain the origin of new information because according to
> > creationism there can be no new information.
>
> But you just explained it!
And 'GODDIDIT !!11!!' is useless, even if it were true (because you
are explaining the unknown in terms of the unknowable - a form of
theological lunacy)
> > Any attempt to exlain the origin of the 'new' information within the
> > mind of God requires an explanation for the origin of God, and that is
> > not a question that creationists seem prepared to address.
>
> But you just answered it: there is no new information because God is eternal
> and omniscient. So, what's the problem?
No evidence this 'God' character actually exists.
No evidence this 'God' character actually IS eternal or omniscient.
No evidence this 'God' character actually placed 'information' (new or
otherwise) in anything.
No evidence that an external source of 'information' is actually
required.
No evidence that the whim of this 'God' character is relevant to
anything.
bpuharic
>"teresita" <rub...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:hhdol...@news1.newsguy.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:50:47 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>>> Darwinism, on the other hand, cannot give the source of information,
>>> because it refuses to take God into account and therefore must make an
>>> unsubstantiated claim that random variation and natural selection
>>> somehow create "new" information.
>>
>> 1. Darwinism doesn't "refuse" to take God into account, surely if there
>> were repeatable observations of God available they would be taken into
>> account.
>
>"Repeatable" observations of the supreme omniscient eternal being are
>certainly available, on God's terms, but the process is distasteful to
>Darwinists, materialists and atheists in general, because they do not want
>to submit to anything greater than themselves. Therefore, Darwinism refuses,
>I repeat, refuses to take God into account.
IOW the reason we dont have any data is because the creationists just
say they dont need to provide any 'cuz god told 'em they didnt have to
how convenient.
and this idea is laughably and easily disproven.
i am 55 years old. my knees are bad. my eyes are bad. i have been a
student nurse and a hospice volunteer. i have seen enough people die
to fill a small cemetery. i know what the future holds
if there was even a SLIVER of data for the existence of god, i'd
accept it. i have seen a fair amount of death first hand. yet i'm
convinced there is no god
the biggest argument against god is the existence of death.
and the creationist has to invoke mindless hatred of atheist because
he can't accept the failure of his argument
>
>> 2. If a species carries information that makes it adapted to a forest,
>> and that forest dies and becomes a desert, the survivors will carry new
>> information that adapts them to life in the desert. The information is
>> not "created" it is merely that the information which permits survival is
>> the only information that is transmitted to following generations.
>
>The survivors already had the information, otherwise they wouldn't have
>survived. The information is not "new". In any case, as the original poster
>pointed out, no information is strictly new, since its source, God, is
>eternal and omniscient.
god is nothing. he's not even an explanation of life liet alone
nature.
>
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:hhdpca$nm0$1...@news.ett.com.ua...
> "teresita" <rub...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:hhdol...@news1.newsguy.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:50:47 -0700, Kalkidas wrote:
>>
>>> Darwinism, on the other hand, cannot give the source of information,
>>> because it refuses to take God into account and therefore must make an
>>> unsubstantiated claim that random variation and natural selection
>>> somehow create "new" information.
>>
>> 1. Darwinism doesn't "refuse" to take God into account, surely if there
>> were repeatable observations of God available they would be taken into
>> account.
>
> "Repeatable" observations of the supreme omniscient eternal being are
> certainly available, on God's terms,
Yes, you have to believe before you can believe. Pathetic "terms."
.
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
> "rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5oeij5dtlskh74r3o...@4ax.com...
>> My thanks to chemist99a from CARM for this idea.
>
> all information, including what we would call "new" information due to our
> lack of omniscience. Darwinism, on the other hand, cannot give the source
> of
> information, because it refuses to take God into account and therefore
> must
> make an unsubstantiated claim that random variation and natural selection
> somehow create "new" information.
>
Creationists must make an unsubstantiated claim that there are deities.
.
hersheyh
What about the role of mutational change rather than recombinational
change? Are you claiming that mutation cannot happen? Or that all
mutation is loss of information? If the latter, explain how that
works.
> Sometimes new information can even be added by that rearrangment.
> "out with the old, in with the new".
>
> a1 + a2 + c + d
>
> aaa + c + d
>
> aaa is the new information.
This is not a rearrangement. It also makes no sense. Not that that
is unusual in your writing.
rossum
>"rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5oeij5dtlskh74r3o...@4ax.com...
>> My thanks to chemist99a from CARM for this idea.
>>
>> Creationists sometimes argue that evolution cannot create any new
>> information. Unfortunately for creationists, creationism cannot
>> create any new information either. All creationism can do is to
>> create is *old* informaton, or rather duplicate old information - not
>> create new information.
>>
>> If God is omniscient then God knows everything, and has known it for
>> an extemely long time. In particular God has known all the
>> information contained in all the DNA of every living organism since
>> long before there were any living organisms.
>>
>> Hence, all the information we see in any organism cannot be newly
>> created information, it must be old information copied by God from His
>> own knowledge.
>
>So what is the problem? Your "creationist" explanation gives the source of
>all information, including what we would call "new" information due to our
>lack of omniscience.
Though we might in our ignorance call it "new" information, it is not
actually new because God already knew it. Only an ignorant
creationist would claim that this was "new" information. To a
knowledgeable creationist it would be old information.
>Darwinism, on the other hand, cannot give the source of
>information, because it refuses to take God into account and therefore must
>make an unsubstantiated claim that random variation and natural selection
>somehow create "new" information.
Darwinism treats evolution as a process that copies information from
the environment into the genomes of organisms living in that
environment. Again, it is not new informaiton but a copy of old
information from the environmrny. Dambski and Marks' recent paper
confirms this analysis - the information is in the environment.
>
>> The argument from information fails for creationists; creationism
>> cannot explain the origin of new information because according to
>> creationism there can be no new information.
>
>But you just explained it!
>
>> Any attempt to exlain the origin of the 'new' information within the
>> mind of God requires an explanation for the origin of God, and that is
>> not a question that creationists seem prepared to address.
>
>But you just answered it: there is no new information because God is eternal
>and omniscient. So, what's the problem?
THe problem is that some creationsts claim that Darwinism cannot
explain new information while creationism can. I am pointing out that
creationism cannot explain new informaiton either. There is no new
information in creationism.
rossum
>
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are a scientists and do not recognize the simplest math?
funny you.
Dan Listermann
creationist has had the courage to admit that he believes such stuff.
.
JTEM
rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> Hence, all the information we see in any organism
> cannot be newly created information, it must be old
> information copied by God from His own knowledge.
Or, put another way: Assuming there is a God, and
that this God does not exist in linear time, this
God must exist in linear time.
Which makes no sense. An all powerful, all seeing, all
knowing creator God would exist outside the confines of
time & space -- you linear time.
No linear time, no "New" and no "Old."
JTEM
Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> So whether information is 'new' or not depends
> solely on what WE know ?
In this example it's based on pure ignorance.
As this God would not experience linear time, the
very idea of "old" or "new" would be virtually
meaningless to it. Meaning, from a God's-eye
perspective, it's all the exact same age.
JTEM
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How is any mutation not new information?
I'll show you how. First, let's establish the
true context by quoting that Possum...errrr...
rossum:
: Hence, all the information we see in any
: organism cannot be newly created information,
: it must be old information copied by God
: from His own knowledge.
So, "old" and "new" are spoken of entirely within
terms of this creator God.
If this "information" isn't "old' to this creator
God, the poster has no point...
The critical point here that everyone has missed
is that you are placing this God within -- limiting
him to -- linear time, when in fact that wouldn't
be the case at all.
And, without linear time, there is no "old" and
there is no "new."
So, bringing us full circle....
you ask how any mutation isn't "New," but the
context here was always FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF
GOD, what is "old" or "new" to this God, and it's
all the exact same age to this God, as it would be
to any being existing outside of linear time.
Prof Weird
> Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> > So whether information is 'new' or not depends
> > solely on what WE know ?
>
> In this example it's based on pure ignorance.
Which is WHY invoking the whim of Gawd is always such a waste of time
- all it is is slapping a robe and halo on ignorance, naming it 'God',
then prancing about CLAIMING your 'answer' is better than everyone
else's.
> As this God would not experience linear time, the
> very idea of "old" or "new" would be virtually
> meaningless to it. Meaning, from a God's-eye
> perspective, it's all the exact same age.
And you 'know' this how, exactly ? Your whining is relevant to
anything how ?
Oh, right - this 'God' character is whatever you need Him/Her/It/Them
to be.
And I suppose this 'God' character (since He/She/It/They conveniently
does not experience linear time) has no comprehension of cause and
effect (which requires linear time).
Oh, right - you somehow 'know' this being that does not experience
linear time has a perfect and absolute understanding of linear time ...
JTEM
Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 1:40 am,JTEM<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> > > So whether information is 'new' or not depends
> > > solely on what WE know ?
>
> > In this example it's based on pure ignorance.
> Which is WHY invoking the whim of Gawd is always such
> a waste of time - all it is is slapping a robe and
> halo on ignorance, naming it 'God', then prancing
> about CLAIMING your 'answer' is better than everyone
> else's.
Yeah, what the heck was that rossum guy thinking when
he did that...
> > As this God would not experience linear time, the
> > very idea of "old" or "new" would be virtually
> > meaningless to it. Meaning, from a God's-eye
> > perspective, it's all the exact same age.
> And you 'know' this how, exactly ?
Um, besides the fact that a "Creator God" was specifically
mentioned, and that space & time are part of our universe,
not independent there of?
>�Your whining is relevant to
> anything how ?
You're clearly approaching this at an emotional,
rather than intellectual, level.
Congratulations.
If you ever want to do without your knee-jerk, you
let me know.
> Oh, right - this 'God' character is whatever you
> need Him/Her/It/Them to be.
You're in free-fall fantasy here. It wasn't I who
introduced this creator God to the thread, and it's
you turning belligerent because I placed this BACK
in their original & proper context.
Again, congratulations.
rossum
wrote:
If "new" cannot be defined, then there is still no new information in
creatinism.
rossum
JTEM
rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> If "new" cannot be defined, then there is still
> no new information in creatinism.
There is no "old" information, either. There is
simply "information."
I don't think that'll upset a lot of creationists.
Burkhard
But that would be a valid answer, no? Their argument, in your version,
runs like this: the ToE requires that _new_information is constantly
created. This is impossible because <insert misunderstood 2 law of
thermodynamics, information theory etc > Creationism by contrast is
consistent with these fundamental theories, as there is nothing
truly new, only appearance of "newness" for us.
While I somehow dount this was yourintent, it seems to me you just
developed an interesting refinement for their position that would
strenghten their point _if_ there was anything problematic with 'new
information" and DNA were really information carrying code
(thankfully, no on both counts)
Dan Listermann
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66b38964-9ef5-4321...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
And this is, of course, very silly.
.
Devils Advocaat
Could be that you got the arrangement of your algebraic notation
wrong, if that is what you were trying to present in your other
posting.
Greg G.
> "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How is any mutation not new information?
>
> I'll show you how. First, let's establish the
> true context by quoting that Possum...errrr...
> rossum:
>
> : Hence, all the information we see in any
> : organism cannot be newly created information,
> : it must be old information copied by God
> : from His own knowledge.
>
> So, "old" and "new" are spoken of entirely within
> terms of this creator God.
>
> If this "information" isn't "old' to this creator
> God, the poster has no point...
While your case may be true for a given Omniscience, it doesn't relate
to ASI's argument that I was responding to. His argument is that
information is just rearranged without addressing what God information
god has. His is from a typical creationist position that mutation is a
loss of information. It's about a loss of information in the genome or
the gene pool, not a loss of information from the mind of a supreme
being.
hersheyh
> On Dec 29, 5:17 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 6:55 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Sometimes new information can even be added by that rearrangment.
> > > "out with the old, in with the new".
>
> > > a1 + a2 + c + d
>
> > > aaa + c + d
>
> > > aaa is the new information.
>
> > This is not a rearrangement. It also makes no sense. Not that that
> > is unusual in your writing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You are a scientists and do not recognize the simplest math?
If this were simple math, there would be an '=' sign somewhere to
indicate that there is only a rearrangement of the information and not
'new information' and you would not simply arbitrarily change a1 + a2
into the symbol aaa. For example:
a1 + a2 + c + d = d + c + a1 +a2
would be a rearrangement that did not produce new information. On the
other hand:
a1 + a2 + c - d =/ a1 + a2 + d - c (unless c = d)
would be a rearrangement that did produce a new result (or new
information), hence the inequality.
But I fully understand that genetic recombination (in all its various
forms) can produce new information, especially by duplication/deletion
errors (but also by generating double mutants). Anytime you have a
duplication, you are necessarily adding 'new information' that may
have a phenotypic effect (or may not). Take for example Bar eye in
Drosophila, or the even smaller duplications that affect the presence
or severity of Huntington's chorea. The problem with genetic
duplication (or mutation in general) is that there is no 1:1
relationship between the amount of new information (or the loss of old
information) and phenotypic effect. The *entire* genome can be
duplicated in some organisms (especially plants) with only small
phenotypic effect whereas a single nucleotide change can radically
affect phenotype.
>
> funny you.
teresita
> As this God would not experience linear time, the very idea of "old" or
> "new" would be virtually meaningless to it.
Not just "virtually" but meaningless in fact. The allegedly omniscient
God could not tell you what time it is.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Max
> On Dec 28, 5:13�pm, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > My thanks to chemist99a from CARM for this idea.
>
> > Creationists sometimes argue that evolution cannot create any new
> > information. �Unfortunately for creationists, creationism cannot
> > create any new information either. �All creationism can do is to
> > create is *old* informaton, or rather duplicate old information - not
> > create new information.
>
> > If God is omniscient then God knows everything, and has known it for
> > an extemely long time. �In particular God has known all the
> > information contained in all the DNA of every living organism since
> > long before there were any living organisms.
>
> > created information, it must be old information copied by God from His
> > own knowledge.
>
> > cannot explain the origin of new information because according to
> > creationism there can be no new information.
>
> > Any attempt to exlain the origin of the 'new' information within the
> > mind of God requires an explanation for the origin of God, and that is
> > not a question that creationists seem prepared to address.
>
> > rossum
>
> This IS.... quite amusing.
>
> Variation within the same "kind" of life produces "new" information
> (and a new variation) by rearranging the information that already
> exists.
>
> "out with the old, in with the new".
>
> a1 + a2 + c + d
>
> aaa + c + d
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Congratulations. You have just shown one way in which mutations can
create new information. Like the nylon eating bacteria.