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

what I got from the new posts is that CS is simply a shorthand for genetic material or the spacific segments of DNA that are being discussed, I dont understand why you want an explonation for this...also you people get way too technical with the term random, its an impossible mathmatical function shorthandedly used to defign something that has so many variables involved with the outcome that it wuld be inpractical if not impossible at the given time to attempt to calculate especially if the model works, simply useing a random variable, like someone who i've now forgotten said, when you flip a coin there is an arguably infinate or extensively long chain of events leading up to it with factors that are only existant currently as their spread out effect

sorry i responded wile you guys did exactly wat I was explaining

Oh, hell if I know. Presumably there's some kind of topological analysis you could perform on the n-dimensional sequence space and find some way to describe how seperate each functional island would be. I certainly don't have the math to do it. The Yockey paper in my cite would seem to indicate that the number would be 0; in other words, there's no separation. No specificity. If you'll scroll back you'll see I haven't. What I deleted was a redundant reply to Garret about hemoglobin C, which Coragyps is defending admirably by himself. Reconsidered at the last minute.

SC is much more than a shorthand for specific segments of DNA.
The claim is that SC can not be increased by the mechanisms postulated by the evolutionary explanation.Every time an example of a pair of DNA sequences is examined it seems possible to get from one to the other by those mechanisms. Since some are claiming that there is some quantity that can NOT increase we'd like to know what that is.If SC is simply a shorthard for specific segments of DNA then we can show mechanisms which CAN take one segment of DNA and make it into another one. The second one can be longer, shorter, more varied, less varied, more random, less random, produce more proteins, produce less proteins. If SC is simply this shorthand then there doesn't seem to be anything which can't increase.Since Garret et all are claiming that there IS something which can't increase they need to make it clear what that is.Crash has had a go at supplying a reference to a more precise definition. It's not all we need but it is at least heading there. Turns out to be complex doesn't it? What the IDers are trying to get to is some idea that a "specific" sequence of DNA is very unlikely. Therefore random processes can't "find" it in DNA space.They overstate this by saying you can't get from "simple" to "complex" by evolutionary mechanisms. Clearly, evolutionary processes don't allow for getting from any arbitrary DNA sequence to any other arbitrary sequence. This is because ALL intermediate steps have to be viable.The reasoning used is riddled with holes.E.g.,
While any specific sequence is, if arbitrarily chosen, not very likely there are a number (unknown) of sequences which work so there is much less specificity than claimed. You and I are, for example, two specific DNA sequences, they are different but both are viable.Another hole is pointed out by Crash's note. Life is clustered very close together. The steps from one to another aren't very large. You can't get any arbitrary DNA sequence to any other but the sequences are strongely suggestive of resulting from a process that isn't getting to arbitrary DNA sequences but is rather constrained. It is, of course, constrained by what it has to start with and the demand that each step be a viable organism.It is a common problem when IDers or creationists attempt to "do science" that they work with nearly zero knowledge of the subject, the evidence and what has gone before. They also tend not to correct their misapprehensions very quickly on the occasions when they do.A good example of this is the darned fool thermodynamics issue. Several major creationist sites have in fact suggested that this is not a useful point to bring up. This is in their favour (that they did so decades and decades after the information was available to make it clear that it wasn't meaningful isn't so much in their favor). However, some lesser lights of the movement are still bringing it up.

That's what I expected you would say. And then if that extra copy is changed to be different information, you will say that was lost information. Nevertheless, with duplication followed by modification you get new information.You are using a vague definition of "information", and then expressing opinion to assert that there was nothing new.If you look at scientific laws, they are closely connected to empirical procedures, often with measurements. And they are defined precisely. You would need a definition of "information" such that we can tell from the definition how much information there is in a genome. And then you would have to show how that definition is relevant to biology and the evolution argument.My prediction: if you ever come up with a suitable definition, it will turn out that biological systems are indeed creating new information by means of mutation. I have no problems with theistic evolution, if that is what you are proposing. But those are poor analogies to evolution. Sure. The parent organism designed it as a message to the cellular machinery on what proteins to construct. So we see it designed by a biological system as a message to another biological system.No need for you to reply to this. I can see that the thread has kept you pretty busy.

DNA is not a language or a code. It is a template. Taking the most common example it's a template to make RNA and the RNA is used to chain amino acids together to create proteins. We can talk talk about code or translation but it's a process of replication and then protein synthesis.Our bodies, specifically our cells aren't really using translation they are just attaching amino acids together and then they have a specific protein. Other combinations of the DNA base pairs are used to indicate where the protein synthesis begins and ends and if it's to take place i.e. if that particular protein synthesis is turned on or turned off. This is simplified in the interest of brevity but really this has nothing to do with the kinds of linguist translation of one language say French into another for example English, or what Shakespeare meant into modern English.What we are talking about is different proteins. Is this what you are calling information?lfen

I'd like to toss in my every day understanding of what is meant by "random" rather than fancy mathematical information theory definitions.I think when talking about random mutation what is meant is that it's strictly by chance. Cosmic rays zip through the earth. Occassionally they zip through an egg or sperm cell, or a bacteria and not only that they zip through a DNA molecule and in so passing through alter a bond. This can't be predicted and hence is random. Same goes for chemical exposure or other radiation exposure or to odd accidents in replication. They happen when they happen and no one knows when or where the next one will strike and it's effect depends on where in the DNA it hits and we say that is at random because we have no way to predict it.Is this acceptable?lfen

That is too focussed on external, very random events.There are copying mistakes in the replication process too. These do NOT, it seems, occur everywhere with equal likely hood. This allows some to become confused as to how "random" they are. Some parts of the chemistry are more subject to errors than others.I think there are also differences in how likely and error will be corrected. The chemistry causes this too.

So you are arguing that even if we know a range of what is likely to happen, that something is still random? How is that helpful in the context of mutations? If we know or could know that certain sequences will mutate according to a certain pattern, but never know precisely what will turn up in any one "roll of the dice" as you put it, then isn't the general mutation quantity and type predictable and thus non-random?If we can predict the mutations that will occur or could predict, even if a member of a species' mutation is random, looking at the species overall and thus using statistical analysis, we could thus predict the mutations and the mutations are thus really not random by your definition. Imo, your definition is not then very helpful or accurate.This message has been edited by randman, 02-14-2006 11:20 PM

There seems to be something interesting there but I don't get it. If I role one die, I know the range of outcomes for sure but it ain't gonna be 99 or zero.If I role the die 1000 times the pattern is very random and not predicatable but I can make money betting on very narrow ranges of the average value of the 1000 roles or on pretty narrow ranges for the occurances of 1, 2, 3 ...6. The chemistry may constrain what outcomes are possible but if and when one of the allowable ones will come up may be random still; just like the dice above. This is a bit more interesting but I think only means that the supplied definition of "random" needs to be clarified.As noted above we can make very accurate predictions of certain sorts about the role of dice (hands in cards, etc.). Do you think that makes these "non-random" in some way?

I think if you can predict statistically what will happen, it is due to a non-random factor and so if you are going to talk about something in a larger context, to call it random is erroneous.Take the dice, which I don't really like as an example but let's run with it. If it is true that if you roll some dice, say, a few thousand times, you can predict the pattern with some degree of accuracy, then the pattern is predictable, and is thus non-random even if in a smaller context, the individual roll of the dice is random per a range.Does that make sense to you?So the rolling of dice is not random as far as producing a predictable pattern. It is only random if you are trying to predict 100% accurately every roll of the dice. Imo, I don't think evos are saying that mutations are like that. I think they are saying that both the individual mutations (the one roll of the dice) and the many rolls of the dice, the general pattern, are random, and I think that's wrong. I suspect it is highly likely we can predict or could be predicted by someone with sufficient knowledge, the mutations sequences will produce in general. The pattern is thus probably embedded into the chemical properties to whatever degree mutations can create evolution.

I don't think you understood my definition. Is one die not random if you can't roll a 7? Of course something can be random within a range of possible outcomes; that's the basis of probability, statistics, and gambling. Unless there's only one possible outcome, it's random. We might express the probability of one outcome over another but the actual outcome, which must be one of the many possibilities, is random.You flip a balanced coin. You roll an unweighted die. I can tell you the probability of each possible outcome but nobody would reasonably suggest that these events are not random. Your concept of "random" is drastically at odds with mathematics, probability, and even simple common sense.

No, not at all. It seems to mean that if there is ANY constraint on the outcomes then the process is non-random. You can define it that way if you want but then there is no random processes at all so the term becomes useless. I think I mostly agree with you here as (other than the misuse of the term random imbedded in there). However, I think that neither the individual mutations or the general pattern are random by your definition. Some individual mutations are (I'm guessing) very unlikely and some are (I'm guessing) much, much more likely (the dice analogy would be a dishonest die). I think that is true to the degree that many mutations are caused by "randomness" like the die roll in the replication process. However, not all mutations are caused by the chemistry of the objects involed.But I'll go back to agreeing. There is at least a chance that the patterns that come out are constrained in any number of ways and that we will be able to, statistically at least, make some predictions about them.However, we now need a word to describe this and the roll of the dice scenario that separates them from much more intuitively NOT "random" events. When I push on a domino and it falls over that is NOT random. When the grandfather clock strikes is NOT random.I also need some examples of what is "really" random then. We can make very strong, accurate and precise statistical statments about quantum mechanical processes are these, then, not random?

Crash, one dice roll may be random within a specific context, but the pattern resulting from thousands of dice rolls is statistically predictable and thus non-random. The pattern is not the result of random occurence, but specific principles that are non-random in nature; in the case of dice, the fact of limited choices over time statistically creating a predictable pattern.In terms of mutations, I think many evos are claiming that the pattern of life forms was not predictable and that if we were to rewind history, it might occur differently, and imo, that's an unfounded claim.

Dude, you don't even need to roll it. You can determine the probabilities from simple inspection of the die.You look at a 6-sided die. (I hate to sound redundant, but anybody with a Monster Manual knows that they come with a lot more sides than that.) Each of six sides is equally likely.You're about to roll it. What will you get? There's absolutely no one on Earth who can tell you. The outcome is random.