Final-Fan said:
|
And this is why it is dangerous to argue a topic when you are, at best, half-informed.
No evolutionist, no Darwinist, no neo-Darwinist, would argue that natural selection can add "new information" - it is the process of CHOOSING the information that is available. That was one of the problems with Darwin, was that there was no understanding of "information", which was later explained by genetics. No surprise then that Darwinian evolution (ie natural selection) was largely abandoned (though the concept of evolution embraced) by most scientists at the end of the 19th century in favor of Neo-Lammarckism and other ideas. It was the rediscovery of Mendel's work in the early 20th century that created the field of genetics, and it was genetics that primarily explained the way that information is passed on and mutated from one generation to the next. This filled in a big missing gap in evolution theory, and that allowed natural selection to be ressurected.
As for adding new information, it has been well explained by gene duplication, chromosomal alterations (translocation, polyploidy, etc), and endosymbiosis. At the same time, research into evo-devo has shown that small alterations of regulatory genes can result in drastic changes to an organism's body plan, without the need to add "extra" information.







