Richard Kouchoo replies:
>However the "two headed" snake scenario is just an example of the
>duplication of 'code' by error (mutation). To create a "wing", a
>totally NEW structure, NEW code is needed. I think this is where
>Johnson and others are coming from.
I think that is why Johnson et al. are not taken seriously.
The wing is not an entirely "new" structure per se, but an
adaptation of a previous one. Yes, there is "new" information
involved in wing evolution, and the source could well have been
"error (mutation)". Assuming that "two-headedness" in snakes
arose from mutations then that certainly is "new" code.
Johnson et al (and I include Lee Spetner here) have NOT properly
defined what they mean by biological information -- certainly not
in any consistent or quantifiable way. I've been through this before
with Spetner and have seen nothing added by Johnson (see the
evolution reflector @ Calvin for past exchanges on the subject)
Given that Johnson couldn't get the AIDS/HIV connection right, I
have little trust in his ability to evaluate information theory as
applied to molecular genetics.
firstname.lastname@example.org (despam address before use)