Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?

Interesting that you ask me to limit myself to the topic even as you don't limit yourself in that manner.And believing in a supernatural God doesn't violate science, rather is totally consistent. Observable science tells us that our natural laws prohibit life from arising from non-life unassisted. Thus a supernatural first cause is logically needed.

Weren't you already shown how more 'info' can come about through mutation?

But I was on topic. You said this in Message 19: After a paragraph of explanatory background, I said this: You go on to argue in this post: This is the point you're trying to support in this thread, something you haven't yet succeeded in doing. Your argument is that increases of information are not possible through natural processes, and you have been provided several examples of the very thing you deem impossible happening, see Message 20 from Coragyps, Message 21 from crashfrog, and Message 23 from myself. My Message 13 is a more general argument.--Percy

So you believe just mentioning "God" means one loses a debate, eh?This message has been edited by randman, 02-14-2006 12:06 PM

Okay, so referring back to the original quote:

quote:

---

There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution

---

Since you have defined macroevolution as moving beyond the species level, that would indicate that speciation would involve beneficial mutations at the macroevolution level. Genetic changes leading to speciation have been observed in many organisms both in both wild and laboratory popuations. So, I'd say this is falsified. All known forms, yes. Show us how it is dishonest. Precisely - extra genetic information would need to be gained along the way. By extra "genetic information," I mean new genes and new alleles. This kind of addition is commonly observable, as others have pointed out. Of course not. I'm saying that extra genetic information was gained along the way. That's an aspect of evolution, but not its totality. A loss of genetic information, promoted through a population by natural selection, is also evolution.

You will find that is par for the course around here. The evo side can hurl insults, divert the topic, etc,...all day long, and then the very same people will make petty demands of you to refrain from even small appearances of rules violation. Moreover, the more effective your argument is, the more you will see this sort of hypocrisy directed at you.

Since we obviously are wanting a more scientific definition and quantification of genetic information...I'll provide a couple links to what I'm referring to. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Information, Science and Biology | Answers in Genesis

I think it's darn clear what he is talking about. Are you saying the information needed to direct the development of all life forms was present in the first life form or that the information was added in process?If it is added in process, then do we see mutations adding such genetic information in a manner that could create all the new designs needed to direct all of the life forms to organize and develop?Instead of quibbling over whether you think the definition of information is precise enough, why don't you guys try answering the question.

I think you misread...the definition of macroevolution is changes ABOVE the level of species. Speciation would fall into the category of microevolution which I wouldn't dispute. As you say...it's observable science. I'm a fan of science that is repeatable...call me a nut.

It's still not clear to me how all that information is gained along the way. I get the idea that distorting existing information can create a new design, but at the same time, do we see the creation of whole new genes or whatever due to mutations?Genetics is not an area I have studied, but when I read the comments by evos in this area, it seems like they are dodging a little the main concept here, and resort to semantic arguments, as usual.

Hi, Randman, haven't you left a whole lot of threads just hanging? Is that just casual phrasing on your part, or did you think that's what I really meant? In Message 19 Garrett argued that ID implies that God put the new information in the genome, not undirected natural processes. God is a religious concept, not a scientific one. The creationist community has struggled long and hard to remove God from all their proposals to legislatures, school boards and textbook publishers so as to give the appearance of being science and not religion. I was just expressing surprise at Garrett conceding the religious foundation of his views so early in thread. Such concessions are sufficient to make clear he's not doing science.Please don't hijack this thread to debate your belief that God is part of the natural universe and is not supernatural. That discussion deserves its own thread.--Percy

But it's not a quibble... The question is completely meaningless without a definition of information. What constitutes "more" information and what constitutes "less". Which contains "more" information the genome of a cat or a dog?I don't really see how any cogent argument can be instructed using "information" as a basis.

The problem may be that you're not familiar with the terminology. Let's review your quote from wikipedia:

quote:

---

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species. In contrast, microevolution refers to smaller evolutionary changes (generally described as changes in genotype frequencies) in populations.

---

In biology, "population" referrs to a group of organisms of a given species. Speciation is the origin of a new species. To continue from your own wikipedia source:

quote:

---

Thus the process of speciation is the link between macroevolution and microevolution, and it can fall within the perview of either.

---

You see, among biologists the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is essential one of scale, rather than function or mechanism.This message has been edited by Belfry, 02-14-2006 12:24 PM

That depends on your definition of 'whole new genes', thats the problem with science Randman, you have to be precise. It may look like semantic pedantry to you but without strict useable definitions there simply isn't anything to discuss, because you probably won't be discussing the same thing.I appreciate that if you aren't familiar with the field concepts such as 'information' and 'new genes' must seem simple, but a simplistic treatment is not one which will lead to a useful discussion based on scientific evidence.TTFN,WK

Semantics are important when a key concept under discussion remains poorly defined.I'm not a geneticist either, and I hope one of the molecular folks will jump in here. Mechanisms for new genes (such as duplication followed by divergence) were referred to in Message 8 and Message 21. The best I can do offhand is refer you to these examples (if you don't like TO, you are welcome to look up the cited references): CB101.2: Mutations and new features.