Can information be added to DNA?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TobyDarkeness
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dna Information
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of whether information can be added to DNA, particularly in the context of genetic engineering and evolutionary theory. Participants explore concepts related to genome modification and the implications of these modifications in debates with creationist viewpoints.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks assistance in countering a creationist claim that no DNA can be added to a genome and requests concepts or sources related to experiments.
  • Another participant references a previous thread and suggests looking into gene duplication, vertical gene transfer, and Shannon-Weaver information theory as relevant concepts.
  • A participant argues against the claim that DNA cannot be modified, citing genetic engineering as evidence, specifically mentioning the use of Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) to track cell lines.
  • One participant discusses the rapid evolution of canids from a common ancestor within a creationist framework, suggesting that this perspective implies a faster rate of information addition than neodarwinian evolution, and critiques the inconsistencies in creationist arguments.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of scientific arguments in persuading creationists and suggests focusing on the contradictions within creationist views instead.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are multiple competing views regarding the addition of information to DNA and the validity of creationist claims. The discussion reflects a mix of scientific perspectives and critiques of creationist arguments.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the lack of specific experimental evidence presented in the discussion and the dependence on differing definitions of "information" in the context of DNA and evolution.

TobyDarkeness
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Hi I'm debating a creationist and he makes the claim that no DNA can be added to a genome. Says there are no experiments. Can someone help me with concepts or sources to experiments? Thanks
 
Biology news on Phys.org
This is simply not true. It is the entire basis of genetic engineering.

For a fun example, many cells are made to fluoresce by engineering them to express Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP). This is regularly used to track a particular cell line in a culture.
 
Likely no scientific argument will convince her/him.

Anyway, most creationists believe that the dog, wolf, coyote, fox, jackal, ethiopian wolf, Indian wild dog, African wild dog, (and some other now extinct species like dire wolf, but I guess they all went extinct during the flood) evolved from a common ancestor in less than 6000 years. This argument works because they cannot deny dog domestication, meaning you can make a 'kind' from a 'kind', whatever they call it. Does that not add information?

In fact, if you calculate the speed, creationist evolution adds information at a faster rate than neodarwinian evolution.

Science puts several canid-ancestors at 400,000 tot 100,000 years ago. And you just had a thread on domestication. Obviously wolves split off from all other canids long before that. That means you need to add information about 100x faster for Noah's evolution, so that all the 'kinds' Noah put on the arc(they need this because otherwise there are too many species, making it absurd even in the eyes of creationists) can evolve into all the species we have now.

That we can see in the lab how proteins of bacteria mutate and gain new properties onder evolutionary pressure, that we can tell exactly where the mutation occurs and how it creates protein homologue that have very different functions, they don't care for that at all.

Best to try to attack their contradictions and absurdities. Attack that version of creationism as a creationist with an entirely different view of creationisms. Because creationism is wrong, they all struggle coming up with a creationist theory that that makes sense. So they all came up with their own crazy variants.

But even better, just give up. You will only get negative energy from any attempt to persuade them.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K