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

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.

I think this is another example of extra content, less meaning.The information has been altered so that a different protein is created as a result. Although this has a beneficial effect, it is actually detrimental to the overall system function as a whole.In terms of the sickle-cell scenario (GUA), the actual trigger that prevents malaria is the fact that the mutation causes the hemoglobin to form in the wrong shape and fail to carry oxygen. This lack of oxygen carrying efficiency is what causes many with the mutation to contract fatal anemia. The same oxygen deficiency, however, also resists Plasmodium. So it's a case of a breakdown of the system being beneficial in some regards. Following down this path would actually lead to more problems than benefits in the long run. I'm not as familiar with the AAA scenario, but suspect it's working right along the same lines.Since the oxygen isn't able to act in it's normal capacity I would say the specified complexity has actually reduced in this case. Meaning, the biological entity in question has fewer functional process than before the "beneficial" mutation.

I'm pretty sure you can't use the very term your trying to define in the definition. How can you compare to a truly random distribution if you have to compare that truly random distrubution to another truly random distribution to truly determine it's true randomness.Honestly, I'm not being a smart*#@, just a point.I would say random means there is no scientific property that guides it. We know that natural selection selects it, but can't pinpoint what guides it. Notice there is no concept of natural origination. In other words, natural selection by definition, can only select among things already existing. Selection, by definition, excludes certain choices due to the favorability of others. Seems clear that it's a loss specified complexity.

To start, let me say I love your signature. I've got the t-shirt.In a sense, you are right. DNA, in and of itself, conveys no meaning. However, the specified complexity of the DNA does have meaning. It's like the alphabet. The letters themselves really have no meaning, and in a technical sense are just a medium for conveying meaning. Further, in order for the specified complexity of the order of the DNA strand to have meaning, it has to be interpreted by some sort of machinary (a translater if you will). This machinery exists within the cell.The granules of sand on the beach have no specified complexity to their order, therefore carry no meaning to be interpreted even if there was a strange beach-side translator to do so.That was the basic point...order doesn't convey meaning, specified complexity does.

One quick point here.If a lack of logic and understanding is what forces a retreat to God as you say, can you give me a logical rebuttal to the following:The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.The universe therefore requires a cause.It is actually science that has taught us to ignore logic in the face of "evidence".

Hey Ned...are you aka AdminNosy?

Will address this tomorrow if time permits. Sufficive to say it's another example of a beneficial result from a deleterious action.

No problem here....just noticed and thought I'd ask.

Give me a minute to light that hoop on fire and I'll get going.

---

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

Just as a clarification, I'm not an ID'er. Although, I agree with many of the tenets of the ID movement, I'd classify myself as a creationist because I believe that the God of the Old/New Testament was the designer. Just wanted to point that out since I'm sure the ID'er in the group, randmann I think it was, wouldn't agree with some of my views (although not to the extent of everyone else, obviously :-)).Obviously, if there has only been a small amount of research done into complexity, then I most likely won't be able to supply a definition that will ever be acceptable to those in this thread. However, not being able to quantify the results doesn't mean the concept is invalidated, just not confirmed...as of yet.

To be honest, if one holds to a theory that requires many successive mutations to increase the complexity of an organism, the onus should be on them to provide evidence, rather than on me to provide evidence that it doesn't happen. Seeing as every example that has been given, including the beneficial mutations, have degraded the function of one of more previously operable systems, that proof doesn't appear to be forthcoming. Benefits can be derived from degradation of functionality, but this sounds a lot more like deevolution than evolution. No new functions have ever been created in this process...just new side effects to old functions.And I don't really think we need to define complexity to understand that it isn't increasing. It rather seems like a convenient way for people to throw out a scientific sounding rebuttal to the issue without actually addressing the issue.

Are you suggesting that the higher organisms which dominate their ecosystems didn't evolve at one point from simple-celled organisms?If not, what do you mean when you say that it isn't necessary for there to be a trend of increased complexity over evolutionary timescales.

That's where we disagree.

The point is you degrade the existing function to arrive at the new side effects. Explain how you can continue to degrade a system without it eventually becoming inoperable. This is why the mutation that helps prevent malaria also causes deadly sickle-cell anemia. Adding more holes to your pants in summertime may benefit you in terms of heat retention, but continue this process long enough and the overall function of the pants is destroyed. Demonstrate how this isn't a valid anology.