Laszlo Bencze, photographer and philosopher, asks us to reflect on the claim:
I’ve just reread two marvelous books dealing with this topic. The first, Undeniable, by Douglas Axe explains in meticulous detail why the probabilities are so preposterously stacked against the creation of information by accident. He truly bends over backwards to make his point as simple as possible via analogy and easy math. The second, Genetic Entropy, is by John Sanford and details the work of many evolutionist geneticists who demonstrate that virtually all mutations are not only nearly neutral but also non selectable. As for positive mutations, if they exist at all, they exist in such small numbers as to not be capable of being shown on a chart. As for those undetectable, near neutrals they all fit on the deleterious side of the chart and they steadily accumulate in the genome, hence the title of his book.
So all this brings to mind literary thoughts about how changing single letters might affect our writing. Most single letter substitutions are so far off they are easily detectible as typographical errors. “Throw the ball to qim,” is a sentence we easily change in our minds to “Throw the ball to him.” I suppose this would be the equivalent of nearly neutral mutation, slightly deleterious but no big deal. But what about a typo that changes meaning? “Throw the ball to ham.” Now the resolution is not so clear. Maybe the sentence was supposed to be “Throw the ball at the ham.” Changing ham to him might not be the solution even though it seems to be most likely. In this case I think we’ve stepped out of the near neutral area into the realm of actually deleterious.
If we begin with a sound sentence then just about every single letter change will degrade its meaning. In biology this works out as “Any random change to a living thing is far more likely to harm than help it.” As both Axe and Sanford point out, this admission is hardly an insight. It’s just common sense. Any highly complex functioning entity whether machine or alive can easily be harmed by random fiddling. (Try poking a ballpoint pen into the workings of a fine Swiss watch.) But it is just about impossible to conceive of any small change that could improve function. As for a long sequence of small changes leading to new entity with different functions, the mind boggles. Without a goal and intelligent guidance it just won’t happen.
Hmmm. Does a small random change never improve function? Perhaps a worm could benefit from more or fewer segments, especially if the change can be just as easily reversed. But that is hardly what we usually mean by “evolution.”
Of course, everyone knows that until Darwinism takes over their brain.
See also: Do random mutations never increase information? Ever? Consider the case of a smalltown newspaper…