Ain’t gonna happen. “New body part” is a Humpty Dumpty word with a definition modified to suit each case of evolution denialism.
Yep. It’s the same game ID-Creationists play with “new information”. You shown them an entirely new genetic sequence producing an entirely new function and you get “that’s not new information, it’s just modified existing old information!”
Which is part of the reasoning behind this thread.
For instance, if creationists want to define “new information” as something akin to an entirely new metabolic pathway like the Krebs cycle appearing all at once in a single generation of unicellular organism, or a “new body part” as a human child being born tomorrow with a functioning jet pack attached to his back that allows him to fly, that would be their prerogative.
But then they would have to demonstrate that the theory of evolution entails that such things must have happened.
Excellent article. I suggest you bring it to the attention of your colleague, Stephen Meyer. He attempted to write an entire book on the Cambrian Explosion without understanding the information in that paper regarding the process by which novelties are understood to have arisen thru evolution (even though that paper was out three years before his book was published).
Thanks for this, Paul. As an aside, I would note that I didn’t notice any mention of broken genes in this review.