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

Contrary to your views, you don't have a monopoly on science. (see this list of scientists who believe the biblical account Bios | Answers in Genesis )I wouldn't cloak my true views and likewise wouldn't want creationism taught in school. It's pretty obvious that people viewing the world through evolutionary glasses have no concept of what creationism is.The only thing I'd change with the current system is to allow more critical analysis of different scientific aspects of evolution. That's really all that is needed.This message has been edited by Garrett, 02-14-2006 12:44 PM

Percy, but if that is it's own thread, then why are you diverting this thread bringing up God in the manner you are?It seems you want to bring it up, and then say, but no one can answer back. If it's off-topic to consider the idea that God's life force for the universe can perhaps be detected and observed, then it's certainly off-topic to bring the matter up in the first place on a thread concerning random mutations.Btw, can you define "random"?

Can you define "random" in the context of random mutations?How about something more difficult? Consciousness? Just because consciousness is not well-defined scientifically does not mean it does not exist or should never be discussed.The simple fact is that sometimes a concept is a fairly clear concept, such as consciousness, but still without a good, full, workable definition. I think it's pretty clear what Garret is talking about in reference to information, and to not discuss looks liek sementacs to me.

Ok, I'll bite since randman thinks this definition is so clear.If you guys are so sure what this so-called "information" is I would like you to explain how we can determine when one species has more "information" than another in their genome.Rank the following animals in order of information richness:Cat, Dog, Horse, Pig, Cow, Goat, BearIf you have a way of determining what constitutes more information than surely you can rank these species in terms of their information content?!?!?!?!?Here's another group to rank:Eagle, Hummingbird, Catfish, Iguana, Frog, Snake, Gecko, Duck, Trout(feel free to choose specific species within the groups I have provided in cases that are no specific enough for you)

I think the biggest problem I have seen whenever this discussion comes up boils down to a misunderstanding and misuse of the term "information". The reason skeptics of creation are always asking for your precise definition of information is because the one you give, or link to in this curcumstance, is not usefull.This usually leads to a cycle of frustration where people on both sides of the debate start screaming about the definition of information. The most important thing to point out is that under the strict definition of information that creationists use (as long as they don't switch back and forth between definitions) it can be shown that the information content of an object can and does increase with the addition of changes analogous to the kinds of mutation that are known.The best example I can think of this is the constant claim of creationists that duplication does not increase information. In this subtle claim what actually is happening is that you are changing your definition of information!If I take the word 'dog' and I duplicate it I then have 'dogdog'. Since I can also do "point mutations" I can also change 'dogdog' into 'gotdog' which IS more information that just 'dog'. At that point the creationist may say that this isn't new information because you are in same alphabet. Thus increase of information has changed from a Shannon style definition to saying that it is not new information unless it involves new symbols which of course does not correspond to the reality of the combinations of things that happen in a genome. When confronted with this the creationists normally just switches back to their original Shannon style definition of information.I think the major point to take from this is that you will be continually hounded for a proper definition of information up until the point that you can actually demonstrate that the definition is both internally consistent and matches reality without the changeup tactic.According to a single definition of information that all of us who have actually studied information theory know, the information of a genome can be positivly shown to increase given the mechanism of evolution. Thus your point is refuted unless you have a way to convince us that our definition of information is wrong and propose a reasonable alternative.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

We don't even need to look at living organisms to see examples of complexity in the universe.Snowflakes are more complex than water molecules which in turn are more complex than oxygen and hydrogen atoms which in turn are more complex than electrons, and so on. Would you say that the complex crystaline patterns of snowflakes are information? If so how do you explain how this information is applied?Are the "instructions" for snowflakes present in the molecule, the atoms, the sub atomic patterns? If not,then is "extra info needed along the way"?lfen

The data on how to determine this is provided in one of my previous posts. Have at a ranking list if you like.I'm afraid you're still missing the point though. The amount of information content relative to different types of animals is not important. The fact that they have different information is all that is important. For instance, a pig doesn't have the genetic instructions needed to generate wings (until pigs fly that is). Conversely, a bird has no genetic instructions for a little curly tail.Where did the new instructions come from. Either instructions for every biological feature for every animal were included in the first cell, or it was added along the way. Show me the process.

but it doesn't have to be THAT specific of a definition to discuss the idea.Why not choose these for arranging:fish, protozoa, monkey, wormIt seems a lot less difficult to arrange these in their amount of 'info' even if the deffinition of 'info' is unclear.

Nope, that is order...not specified complexity. Snowflakes form because of the designed properties inherent within the water molucules. They don't decide to form a certain way because it looks pretty.That is tantamount to saying that a pile of sand conveys meaning. Sure, it has an order, but only because the mass, size and other properties of the granules cause it to form a certain way.

This is CRAP. If you are so sure the data is there RANK THE ORGANISMs. As the phrase goes.... "put up or shut up".Can you prove that the pig doesn't have the genetic instructions for wings? What the hell is a genetic instruction anyways? DNA is made up of 4 base pairs correct? I'm no biologist, but as I understand it the sequences of base pairs are what make up genes or "genetic instructions" as you call them.1. Do we agree that all organisms have the same Base pairs in their DNA?2. If they do, can we all agree that these sequences of base pairs can change from generation to generation as a result of reproduction or mutation?3. Guess what! We're done. All creatures contain all "genetic instructions". Since DNA can change over time and every creature has the same 4 base pairs we could have any sequence!Biologists - Correct me if I'm wrong here and I'll retract this.

Let's use this sentence as an example. Forget about biology for a second...simple information theory here(and yes it's off topic slightly):The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogLet's duplicate part of it and add it back in, much in the same way a random change to the sentence may do.The quick brown fox lazy dog jumped over the lazy dogThis is extra order, but not extra information. In fact, it corrupts the previously existing information. Most beneficial mutations are doing just that. If you are talking about actual "length" of information...it's increasing. If you are talking about the meaning of the information, it is not increasing.

Your right...DNA is made of base pairs, which when put into order are translated (also by our bodies) using a language convention. It's like the alphabet. It only means something given the right language convention.1) Do we all agree there are 26 letters in the English alphabet?
2) That being the case, is it possible that monkey's could randomly edit a Word document and we would have more text.
3) Guess what...we would but it sure wouldn't convey any new information. (Maybe you think it would, that is where we disagree.)

---

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

quote:

---

The data on how to determine this is provided in one of my previous posts.

---

I've seen those links before. If you read them, you'll see that the content lacks the precision needed to make the necessary qualitative calculations.-

quote:

---

The fact that they have different information is all that is important.

---

So now "information" has a qualitative aspect as well as quantitative? I doubt this very much. I think that if you go down this path you will find yourself at a dead end very, very quickly. In fact:-

quote:

---

For instance, a pig doesn't have the genetic instructions needed to generate wings (until pigs fly that is). Conversely, a bird has no genetic instructions for a little curly tail.

---

I hate to break it to you, but a pig doesn't have genetic "instructions" for a curly tail either, nor does a bird have "instructions" to form a wing. The genome is not a blue print, nor a set of "instructions". But I'll let the experts on embryology and development explain how this works in more detail.The important thing is that you haven't changed your argument, and so the same criticisms apply. You haven't presented any kind of argument why a species couldn't acquire "information" (whatever that is) that would result, over many generations, in a winged species.-One interesting point that no one has yet talked about is that evolution is established fact. There are multiple lines of evidence in many fields using different methodologies and observational techniques. I suggest you study the supplied link carefully.So, if your mathematical model does suggest that evolution is impossible, then that would contradict the vast amount of obersvational evidence that evolution has occurred! So, how would you reconcile this paradox? In science, if a mathematical model predicts something that is not, in fact, true, then it is the mathematical model that is deemed inadequate. Why would you place more faith in an abstract mathematical model, like "information theory", than in the actual observations made by many, many different scientists working in many, many different fields, using many, many different experimental and observational methodologies? Well, even if you can explain why you would do this, why should I ignore actual facts and data and logical and reasonable interpretations of those data just because someone thinks the have a "mathematical model" that says otherwise?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

In this situation you again have changed the definition of information. In this circumstance the definition of information is equivalent to the definition of "meaning".In this context of the human language the duplication of the word 'lazy' does not add meaning but it most certainly does add information.In the context of a genetic sequence it may very well add "meaning" also. The important thing to notice is that in both circumstances it certainly does add information via any classical information theory definition.If you want to talk about how evolution is impossible because random mutation and selection does not add "meaning" then you need to be capable of providing a definition of meaning and how duplication does not add meaning in the case of genetic duplication.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 02-14-2006 11:55 AM

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This is just a bad analogy that makes no sense.As I understand it, the purpose of DNA is to code the production of proteins. This seems to have nothing to do with information at all.Consider 4 functions (like 4 base pairs)Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide. I can get any rational number by combining those 4 (in fact you dont even need multiply) operations. So even though I can generate more and more numbers I don't need to add any new operations.Also think about how computers work. You can reproduce ANY computer program (if you are a masocist) by only using NAND and NOR operations. In fact, this is how computers work at a basic level. There is not more information per se (just 1's, 0's, NANDs and NORs) but we have gotten better and better at more efficiently manipulating and processing it.Here is a good article written for kids that should be easy for everyone to understand (including clueless computer engineers like me!)404: Content Not Found | The Tech Interactive