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

So is creationism, ID, etc,.....all of those models and theories embrace microevolution as well. So if ToE is an established fact due to "evolution" being an established fact, then so is creationism and ID, and you have the enveniable position of your logic proving as factual contradictory theories.

Once again you are confusing information and meaning. Meaning changes with context but information does not. Therefore using the english language as an analogy into genetics is a fallacy because the context is VASTLY different. Random sequences of characters actually has "meaning" in genetics which it does not in the english language. I may suggest that you actually read up on some information theory before you continue. It may at least help you understand where we are coming from in our insistance that you define your terms well.And remember, the greatest source of information is a true random number generator. If that does not make sense to you then you don't understand information theory.

---

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

Actually, I was talking about what you would call "macroevolution", which is also established fact. We can discuss the evidence that firmly establishes it as fact, but that would be the subject of another thread. Probably many threads. In fact, you have already taken part in some of them.

---

"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

Microevolution being a fact though proves macroevolution no more than it proves creationism. That's my point.Moreover, the term "evolution" in this thread refers to macroevolution and so you cannot call "evolution a fact" on this thread and be intellectually honest.

Hmmm...can you define "random" for us here so that we have precise definitions to work with?

If you need me to define meaning...I'd have to start by explaining the meaning of the English language so you'd understand the definition. Come on, we all know what meaning is.From this point forward I'll refer to information as specified complexity so we don't play this little game. Adding length, does not add specified complexity and meaning.

I am not sure where you got the idea that I am claiming that "microevolution" proves macroevolution. I am not saying that at all.I am saying that macroevolution is established fact. If you disagree that it is established fact, then bring it to the appropriate threads.

---

"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

I don't think your lack of understanding my argument means I haven't presented it.Wikipedia disagrees with you on the function of DNA I'm afraid:Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid ”usually in the form of a double helix” that contains the genetic instructions specifying the biological development of all cellular forms of life (and most viruses).As to evolution being a fact...you are obviously referring to microevolution (ie. adaptation, natural selection) since macroevolution (ie. goo-to-you) is completely unrepeatable. You truly don't even understand my argument. Evolutionists like to remind you that microevolution is fact then suggest that proves macroevolution.As to why a species can't acquire information...it's because no known natural process can create specified complexity. In other words, no unintelligent process would know how to arrange the strand in an order that had any meaning to the translator.

---

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
C. S. Lewis

It's the constant red herring. Very frustrating.

quote:

---

Wikipedia disagrees with you on the function of DNA I'm afraid:

---

Not important to my argument, so I won't go into details. If someone wants to explain how development works, then I'll leave the task up to them.-

quote:

---

As to why a species can't acquire information...it's because no known natural process can create specified complexity. In other words, no unintelligent process would know how to arrange the strand in an order that had any meaning to the translator.

---

Just repeating the same statements over again with, perhaps, different words does not make them true, nor does it make for a cogent argument.-

quote:

---

As to evolution being a fact...you are obviously referring to microevolution (ie. adaptation, natural selection) since macroevolution (ie. goo-to-you) is completely unrepeatable.

---

No, I am stating that what you call "macroevolution" is established fact. As I have told randman (who also seems to be having trouble understanding this seemingly simple statement), if you want to dispute that then you can take it to the appropriate threads.However, seeing that evolution has occurred, that humans did evolve from non-human apes, that mammals did evolve from amphibians, that birds did evolve from dinosaurs, and that all known life does have a common ancestor, then any mathematical model that says that this is impossible must be flawed.

---

"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

That doesn't make any sense. Individuals always are part of a species. Therfore any mutation - since mutations always occur in individuals - is within the "species level." The theory of evolution proposes that all living things on Earth are the decendants, via successive events of speciation, of one population of organisms. If you accept speciation within "microevolution", then the entire evolutionary history of life needs be considered nothing more than successive microevolutionary change. There's no need to substantiate "macroevolution" because macroevolution has just been defined as something that need not ever occur for all species to be the ultimate decendants of a single organism.You've both destroyed your own argument and proved why the micro-macro terms are essentially devoiud of meaning and best abandoned by serious biologists.

Garrett (or Randman): post 20, this thread, if you get the time.Thanks.

Calling something a fact doesn't make it one. Nor does claiming something is observed when it is not. Macroevolution is not observed and is not a fact. That's just evos once again resorting to semantics and sophistry to try to win their arguments, appealing to authority and avoiding the substance of the data and debate.

Not the point of the thread. If you want to chew up another thread where you ignore clear evidence and logical inferences then start a new one.This thread concerns itself whether random mutations can increase "information" in the genome. My point is that if there is evidence that shows that evolution has occurred, then there is a flaw in any mathematical model that suggests otherwise. You (and Garrett) don't have to accept that there is such evidence, but the rest of us do, so my question remains.Seeing that there is so much evidence in favor of evolution, or, if you prefer, seeing how the rest of us see so much evidence in favor of evolution, then why do you expect us to take seriously a mathematical model that suggests 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

Or how about this?Let's assume that any "mutation" that doesn't create a readable sentence is thrown away but any mutation that leaves the sentence to be readable will stay in the "population".Ok:The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dot.Still readable.The quiet brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.Still readable.The quick fox jumped over the lazy dog. [deleted brown]ditto.The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy brown dog.ditto (and part is duplicated, hmmmm.)The quick brown fox jumped over the stupid lazy dog.no problems here. Now can you imagine what would happen over time with the sentence as more mutations act upon it over time. Eventually it isn't going to be recognizable from what it was before.