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

To be fair to Randman and Garrett, I don't think we could easily answer these questions using traditional information theory, either. We'd need to know the number of genes and the number of alleles for each gene in the populations of dogs and cats, as well as their frequency. Then there's whatever mysterious information isencoded in the non-functional junk DNA that isn't as nonfunctional as originally thought.The difference between specified complexity and information theory is that if these things were known, then information theory could answer the question as to which contains more information. In the end it just comes down to comparing how many bits it takes to represent the dog population's genome versus the cat's. But specified complexity can produce no such metric. I've read Dembki's book The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design, and there was no equation for calculating specified complexity. He has many other books, though. Maybe someone's read one that provides a method for calculating a number for specified complexity? Randman? Garrett? Anyone?--Percy

Hi, Ned, hope you don't mind me inserting my opinions here. Garrett and Randman can confirm if I've got this right, but it was my interpretation that as far as the original topic goes, they already pled nolo contendere a while back, which is fine by me. Perhaps we should just be content with hoping the audience thinks we won. To be fair to Garrett, I don't think blame for the topic change can be laid at the feet of any single individual. I know the counterarguments, but given the magnitude of the task he set himself I thought he did very well and compiled an excellent record of working within the Forum Guidelines, just a little bit better than did his evolutionary counterparts (which includes me). I hope he can return soon.--Percy

Hi Randman,I know I'm replying to Mark24's message, but this is actually addressed to you because of the way Mark24 replied, which I quote here: If Mark24's point was already clear then just ignore this, but in case not, he's highlighting the pointlessness of replying in this fashion. Both sides can sit in their respective corners and shout ad hominems at each other, or they can engage in constructive discussion. Which, by the way, is the entire reason this forum exists, to provide a venue where constructive discussion between creationists and evolutionists can take place through effective moderation to eliminate all the crap.In an ideal world all the members would understand this and there would be no need for moderators. In a slightly better world than this, everyone would only need an occasional reminder. But in this real world in which we live it turns out that there are some people who can not conform themselves to constructive discussion and respectful behavior no matter what.I know you believe the evolutionist side is just a bunch of lying, thieving hypocrites bent on nothing less than the moral destruction of the western world, but if you're really better than your opponents then you may as well demonstrate it by behaving better.--Percy