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

One of the problems here derives from how we choose to define 'information'. In a mathematical definition, increases in information are merely a statistical property of the encoding system, so genes with more base pairs contain more information than those with fewer, just as sentences with more words theoretically have the potential to contain more information. But, as we know, there are a lot of very long sentences written that contain less information (in a qualitative sense) than some very short sentences.Another problem with discussing 'information increase' is one of context. Your example about a gene with eight alleles refers to information contained in a *population* - not an individual, as any given diploid individual can only have a maximum of two of them.But the clear answer to the topic question is an undeniable and resounding YES and it is best explained with a genetic illustration.Suppose a random mutation next to a functional gene causes it to be duplicated during meiosis so that all germ cells arising from this lineage contain two (tandem) copies of the same gene. However, only the original gene is transcribed in the organism - the duplicate lies dormant for many generations because its promotor region is suppressed. During this period of dormancy, more random mutations accumulate in the duplicate gene that are not selected against because the is no expression and the amino acid sequences encoded by the gene are completely changed. Genetic information in the organism has been increased - but it will have no consequences to organismal phenotype unless another random mutation activates the promotor of the duplicate gene that is then transcribed into a completely novel protein. At this point, protein information in the organism will have been increased.It does not run counter to any logic to assume that random changes can result in increases in genetic or protein information. What is required is an understanding that these random changes occur within the framework of regulatory mechansims that are highly structured and conserved, so that some random changes are conserved (either through positive selection for them or simple neutrality of effect) while many others are not (deleterious - selected against).
Thus, even though the original event is truly random, it can result in increased information because neither its conservation nor its loss will be random events, but rather directed by very complex and conserved biological processes.

What I like about my own approach is that evolution happens to populations, not individuals. Individuals have only static amounts of information. In order to consider the same issue of increases of information within a single diploid individual you have to examine the process of meiosis.But I think many people have an easier time thinking in terms of individuals rather than populations, and for this reason I wonder if you could come up with an information example similar to my own, but for an individual rather than a population. We've probably had between 10 to 20 requests for specifics regarding how one measures specified complexity, but we've not had an answer yet, so maybe this will help.--Percy

The problem is there are probably as many ways to measure 'specified complexity' as there are possible definitions of it. So my inherent preference is for concrete, biological examples, rather than for quantitative mathematical techniques that assess only the 'potential' information encoded in particular systems.You are right that, from an evolutionary standpoint, information contained in the population is the most important. We can see the important effects of information loss at this level when populations pass through a 'bottleneck' - substantial genetic diversity is lost to the point where survival of the species may be endangered. So population information content is always some function of population size.The argument for information increase as a function of random mutation is actually very easily made here. Random mutations occur at some statistical rate in the population (bigger populations will have more variation) and UNLESS every single one of them is lethal or sufficiently deleterious as to be imediately eliminated, the amount of information in the population *has* to increase over time, measured in number of generations. (Remember that many mutations are effectively neutral to fitness, even if most are deleterious and very few are beneficial).Examples at the individual level are, as you note, more relevant to the average person, who often needs reminding that evolution does not occur at the level of the individual. But we can provide examples at this level as well. Th simnplest way we might quantify information contained in individual genotypes is by degree of heterozygosity. For example, a mutation in a transcribed (functional) gene leads to formation of a unique and novel allele at one locus in a germ cell during meiosis. The zygote formed by this germ cell, being diploid, has two copies of the gene, one being the novel allele. This individual, instead of producing only one type of protein product, produces two slightly different ones, and contains more 'information' (at both the genetic and protein levels) than other individuals in the population that are all homozygous for the ancestral allele. Voila - random mutation produces an increase in information at the level of the individual.This message has been edited by EZscience, 02-15-2006 10:41 AM

http://www.leaderu.com/...ces/dembski/docs/bd-specified.htmlhttp://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Specified_ComplexitySo the idea appears to be that in the combination of specificity and complexity, we see intelligent design.

To be very clear. What is required is not just the definition of SC but also the metric derived from said definition so that we can actually check to see if something has less or more SC.We can sit here all day and puff about what is and is not SC but until we can measure it this conversation is meaningless.

---

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

I think that anyone can 'see' intelligent design almost anywhere they want to in living things (and elsewhere), but in reference to your quotation, I would argue that random mutation generates the (potential) complexity of living organisms, but the highly ordered mechanisms of inheritence selectively preserve portions of it in very specific biological contexts. Hence the illusion of directed processes and/or designed systems when the end results are viewed.

This is from your second reference.And it is exactly what they are doing with the existing genomes. That is where the arrow is and they draw the target around that and call it a specified hit. It is that simple and that useless.

It is worth pointing out that Dembski uses improbability as his measure of "complexity".Identifying something as having "specified complexity" requires showing that it would be very improbably that it could evolve, sicne the relevant probability includes evolution. Thus by Dembski's very definition evolution cannot be expected to produce this sort of "specified complexity" (and if it could then Dembski's arguments would be wrong)Dembski has found no way of usefully applying this idea to any biological feature thought to have evolved, and thus it cannot be used as an argument against evolution. Until it is possible to solve this problem it is a non-issue.

Randomness is no longer being discuss here. DO NOT REPSOND

In certain situations we can have some degree of certainty, but we can not predict it 100% I thought you appreciated QM? Under VERY controlled circumstances we could probably do very well. However, in nature there are simply too many variables with too many uncertain elements to make any decent prediction. Indeed, random describes one of two things. Either truly random (events that happen without a direct cause such as radioactive decay (which, because it has a frequency associated with it, you reject as random)). The other is chaotic. A system is chaotic if it appears random but is deterministic and very sensitive to initial conditions.I think there random mustation is mostly chaotic in nature, but I feel that because it is a molecular level phenomena that true randomness (ie at the quantum level) has a large part to play. Therefore, due to the uncertainy principle it is impossible to know all the exact conditions to be able to make a perfect prediction, though one can narrow the range considerably.Knowing all these conditions is usually associated with lab work and is impractical in 'the real world'.So the question is:
Do you believe that with the same set of starting conditions the same mutations will happen every time?
or
Do you accept that quantum effects can render perfect predictions undoable and instead leaving you with a range of possible mutations with associated probabilities?

---

yeah, posted before I read Nosy's declaration on the Random embargo. One day I'd like to get to the bottom of RMs randomness, until then we'll have to move on to specified complexity.This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 15-February-2006 05:40 PMThis message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-15-2006 12:41 PM

We have finished with the randomness discussion. You may have missed the warning.I won't hand out any more warnings.

All this arises because 'specified complexity' is not a scientific concept in any way, however Dembski may contrive to make it appear as such.The anti-evolutionists love to phrase arguments in terms that are neither quantifiable nor testable.I think PaulK has a good point. Dembski is trying to define something that is 'a priori' impossible to produce via evolution. We should not be suckered into trying to grapple with his contrived concept.

I agree which is why it is important to argue on the point of the metric. It is easy to see why a metric is needed. The onus is then upon the IDer or the Creationist to produce the metric and when they define SC such that you cannot produce a metric then their argument fails.However the conversation goes the focus should be on producing that metric. Until it shows up all we are doing is sort of listening to complicated sounding nonsense.

---

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

Quite so.
But I would contend that the topic sentence of the opening post is answerable and was never in contention.
Random mutation generates genetic variation that, acted on by ordered biological processes, clearly produces changes in living structures. Life's complexity is ordered by natural selection and 'specified' by the molecular rules of genetic expression.What I can't understand is why these ID people refuse to construe such genetic changes (which they accept) as comprising 'new information' or 'increases in information content' both of which they clearly are.

I still haven't got an answer to my question.What genome contains more "information" the dog or the cat genome?Alternately rank these organisms according to the information content of their genome:Dog, Pig, Horse, Cow, Bear, Goat, CatGarrett? Randman? This is your big chance to show us something. This is a VERY simple question. If you can measure the information content of DNA you should be able to answer this question.

The whole issue is just one of parsing their language. At first they say "no new information". Then when you show them that using information theory this is false they abandon AIG and switch to ID terminology and talk about specified complexity. The thing they don't realize in the changeup is that the same things that are well defined for information theory don't just carry over because they want them to.The problem is that they truly are confused and in their confusion produce obfuscated arguments to deal with. Essentially at that point most of what they say constitutes gibberish with big words.

---

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