What Creates Innovation?

We sometimes like you use “creativity” for “innovation” or “innovation” for “creativity” but these two words contain separate meanings.  Creativity is an idea, while innovation is bringing that idea to life.

Creationists view DNA including so-called, “Junk DNA” as creativity while evolutionists view junk mutations as “innovation” thus skipping the “creativity” part because evolution has no idea, because it’s considered to be a mindless process.  Well, maybe not! However, evolutionists continue to seek something in mutations that can define “creativity” (without the idea part of it if that makes any sense) as found in such articles as this recent one in phys.org...”Insects show how DNA mistakes become evolutionary innovation.”

It continues…

“In two recently published projects, however, scientists show how typos can indeed lead to improvements. In numerous species of insects, they document the DNA errors that led to changes that are not only beneficial but also brilliant. Various species of beetles, aphids, butterflies, and moths have independently acquired genetic errors that allow them to eat highly toxic plants and then use the toxins to defend themselves against predators.”

What did Faye Flam (the reporter) offer as proof for this assumption? Mutations (copy errors in the DNA) caused the cardenolides not to bind to the enzymes required by the insects’ sodium pump. Notice, the insects are still the same species, and there was no increase in novel genetic information, or even specified complex structures.  So the mutations themselves lack the ability to explain origin like how did the sodium pump and the enzyme come into existence in the first place? Do you know what I mean?

By removing one of your fingers to slip out of the handcuffs or even removing one of your arms so your hands could never be handcuffed ever again would not be considered a new innovative mechanism but it’s only a reduced vulnerability! The article celebrated this experiment as an “evolutionary trick” that produced “convergent evolution” in different insect lineages.

The author of the article seems to forget that evolution should be producing novel information (rather than reducing a vulnerability) that leads to new species.  Flam (the author of the article) could not claim that the varieties able to ingest the toxins were new species; but rather he confessed at the end, “The way new species are born is another longstanding puzzle in evolution that DNA is helping scientists to solve.”  In other words, comeback for promised evidence of innovation without the idea behind it.

Where is the really big innovation attributable to mutations? Duplications are a form of mutation, but just because you get a second copy of your twitter feed,  doesn’t mean the second one will evolve into a new, or better feed when cosmic rays hit it. Mutations can change existing information while decaying the information but there is no evidence that it can produce novel information!

So what creates innovation? The answer is simple, nothing creates innovation, creativity is the idea that innovation brings to life and ideas as we observe them come from intelligence! Whether it be artwork, a car engine, your computer, your smartphone, or nature itself! Without creativity there is no innovation.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “What Creates Innovation?

  1. One of the easier ways to get rid of inconvenient facts is to define them out of existence.

    In this case, Michael defines creativity as “an idea.” An idea is a concept or a mental impression; that is, it can only exist in a mind. Then, since evolution is a mindless process, evolution cannot exhibit creativity.

    Michael concludes that, therefore, evolution cannot exist. Of course, he overlooks the obvious answer: Evolution does not require creativity, nor do biologists claim that it does. The following, for example, is nonsensical—

    However, evolutionists continue to seek something in mutations that can define “creativity” (without the idea part of it if that makes any sense)

    Michael next claims that evolution cannot exhibit innovation, because innovation requires creativity—

    So what creates innovation? The answer is simple, nothing creates innovation, creativity is the idea that innovation brings to life and ideas as we observe them come from intelligence!

    So, by the sleight of hand of defining terms, Michael has made evolutionary innovation impossible. But, guess what, we don’t care what you call it., it happens. Call it “transmogrification” if you like.

    Functions change and new functions appear. Phenoptypic structures change and new ones appear. Species change and new ones appear.

    —————————-

    The definition scam is common among creationists. All they have to do is to equivocate the definition of a term where one of the meanings involves an intelligence, pretend that this is the only meaning, then proclaim that evolution can’t do that, because evolution is mindless.

    In this case, innovation can mean either (a) the introduction of something new, or (b) a new idea, method or device. The second meaning includes a mental component—but the first one does not. So what Michael does is convince the gullible that the second is the “real” meaning, and then substitute it for every occurrence of the term, regardless of the writer’s intent.

    Other scientific terms suffer the same fate at the hands of the delusionists. “Information” is a favorite. Although most of the dictionary meanings do imply a mental component, the meaning used in science does not. Yet creationists continue to pretend that “information” is an exact synonym for “meaning.” “Design” is another common example. To a scientist, the “design” of an organism, a snowflake, or a weather system merely denotes its “structure.” “Function” and “purpose” constitutes another pair. Something that has a function does not necessarily have any preordained teleological “purpose.”

    Equivocation of scientific terms is yet another way in which creationists lie to us. And to themselves.

  2. A corollary to creationists’ definition shell game is to make up a term having no definition, and then assert that evolution cannot exhibit this quality.

    In this case, “novel genetic information.” Here’s your chance, Michael! Set forth here _____________ a definition of “novel genetic information.” Since you claim this to be a scientific term, specify how it is measured, and how we can determine by comparison whether or not one genome contains novel genetic information that a different one lacks.

    Michael’s next task is to set forth the secret[1] definition of “specified complex structure” in a way that we can test a given sdtructure to determine whetehr or not it has specified complexity: ___________ For example, does a block copolymer macromolecule exhibit specified complexity? The Calvin cycle? The worldwide pattern of ocean currents? A Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction? ATP?

    What did Faye Flam (the reporter) offer as proof for this assumption? [that typos can lead to improvements] Mutations (copy errors in the DNA) caused the cardenolides not to bind to the enzymes required by the insects’ sodium pump. Notice, the insects are still the same species, and there was no increase in novel genetic information, or even specified complex structures. So the mutations themselves lack the ability to explain origin like how did the sodium pump and the enzyme come into existence in the first place? Do you know what I mean?

    Michael here exhibits his profound ignorance of biology. The biggest howler is that Michael seems to think that the sodium pump is a feature of certain species of insect. Guess what, Michael: Sodium pumps are found on ALL cells of ALL animals in the world. They have been there since God was a boy, and they perform many different functions. You’d have to go back almost a billion years to find the origin of sodium pumps.

    Creationists refuse to define novel genetic information. However, there can be no doubt that these insects have gained a function that they did not have before the gene mutation. The mutation codes for a different pump protein—one that the plant toxin cannot affect. Michael might wish to explain in detail why this is not novel genetic information.

    IN ADDITION, the insects which duplicated this gene can store the plant toxins and thus become poisonous themselves to predators. The gene duplicated—no big deal, happens all the time. One copy stayed the same, while the other began mutating at random—again, happens every day. Both copies stuck around. This may be somewhat unusual, in that the original form is still subject to the toxin. BUT promoters near the genes for these two forms regulated the two copies differently in different tissues. The original copy is expressed in the brain, which is not exposed to the toxin. The modified copy is active in the gut, which comes into contact with the ingested toxin. A simple matter of selection here.

    Let’s hear Michael tell us again that the combination of original and mutated gene, and the different regulators is NOT a specified complex structure. It comprises a number of interconnected parts that together accomplish a (new) specified function. Michael, if you disagree, then tell us in detail why this assembly does not meet the definition of “specified Complex structure”

    I thought not.

    Desperate, Michael, desperate.

    ============

    [1] It must be secret. No creationist or IDer has ever vouchsafed it to the public. Stephen Meyer has written an entire book about it without ever defining it. (Signature in the Cell)

  3. The author of the article seems to forget that evolution should be producing novel information (rather than reducing a vulnerability) that leads to new species.

    >> A species becomes genetically diverse by accumulating normal mutations. Even Ken Ham will agree with that.
    >> A natural barrier divides the species into two populations that cannot interbreed.
    >> The two populations continue to become diverse through normal mutations. However, the mutations on one population will be random with respect to those of the other.
    >> Eventually, the populations become recognizably different, and will not interbreed even if the barrier is removed.[1]
    >> Voila—speciation in a nutshell.[1][2]

    Some plants can generate new species almost instantaneously, by whole-genome duplication.[3] In this case, the barrier is genetic, rather than physical.

    Now, please explain why you believe that new species require “novel information,” or how the above processes introduce “novel information”: _______________________.
    .

    STUPID, Michael, just plain stupid.

    ===============

    [1] Over the past few hundred years, cichlid fishes have done this dozens of times, as people watched.

    [2] One of the problems in reading secondary sources such as phys.org is that the reporters frequently don’t know what they are talking about. “The way species are born” is not a puzzle; several methods have been known for a long time. When you are so ignorant of biology, you can’t tell the reasonable from the unreasonable.

    [3] The banana evolved from the plantain in an amazingly short time, on a Jamaican plantation in the 1830s..

  4. However, evolutionists continue to seek something in mutations that can define “creativity” (without the idea part of it if that makes any sense) as found in such articles as this recent one in phys.org…”Insects show how DNA mistakes become evolutionary innovation.”

    Poor Michael. He keeps getting tangled up in his own thoughts.

    After taking great pains to differentiate the meaning of “creativity” from that of “innovation,” he treats them as interchangeable in the above quotation.

    Michael says that the phys.org article claims that mutations can exhibit creativity. Problem is, of course, that the article deals only with “innovation,” and nowhere mentions or implies “creativity.”

    So what is Michael talking about here? One might wonder.

  5. However, evolutionists continue to seek something in mutations that can define “creativity” (without the idea part of it if that makes any sense) as found in such articles as this recent one in phys.org…”Insects show how DNA mistakes become evolutionary innovation.”

    On the other hand, Nassim Taleb[1] thinks that creativity is powered by disorder and uncertainty, not by “ideas” that necessarily spring from an intelligence. He divides his new book into “subbooks” dealing with different areas of knowledge.

    One of these subbooks concerns biology. He asserts that evolution is the engine that allows life to endure despite massive shocks to the environment. Evolution can accomplish this, Taleb says, because it exhibits creativity as a process of tinkering and serendipity.

    Hmm. Comestibles for contemplation.

    =================

    [1] Taleb, Antifragile: Things that Gain from Disorder (Random House 2012).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s