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

I'm wondering if you could help us out with specified complexity.

quote:

---

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species. In contrast, microevolution refers to smaller evolutionary changes (generally described as changes in genotype frequencies) in populations.

---

What is the specified complexity of that definition?

quote:

---

Znpebribyhgvba ersref gb ribyhgvba gung bpphef nobir gur yriry bs fcrpvrf. Va pbagenfg, zvpebribyhgvba ersref gb fznyyre ribyhgvbanel punatrf (trarenyyl qrfpevorq nf punatrf va trabglcr serdhrapvrf) va cbchyngvbaf.

---

What is the specified complexity of that, equally long string of characters? How does that all measure up to a bad german translation:

quote:

---

Macroevolution bezieht sich auf Entwicklung, die ber dem Niveau der Sorte auftritt. Demgegenber bezieht sich mikroevolution auf die kleineren Entwicklungsnderungen (im Allgemeinen beschrieben als nderungen in den Genotypusfrequenzen) in den Bevlkerungen

---

More specified? Less complex? You tell us! If your ideas on complexity are right, then it would be a great demonstration of or falsification for evolution.

Indeed. When it comes to DNA though the analogy gets complicated. We would need to have a die that when rolled would change its dimensions subtly.In a sense you are saying, that if an event has a frequency it cannot be random. In the die case we are talking a frequency of 1/6 for each possibility. That would mean very little is random, radioactive decay isn't random. Given that DNA replication takes place at the molecular level, I wouldn't be surprised if quantum effects come into play. Indeed, radioactive decay can cause mutations. If you think we could rewind time and all things would happen in the same way down to the quantum events...then yes, life would follow the same road of course.The alternative is that random events are still random and life might proceed differently. I think the 'claim' evos are making when they say this is more in context of 'evolutionary direction' and 'unrolling'.I think what evos are saying is that we are unable to predict what mutation will happen when. The order that the mutations happen in can be important. Thus, we cannot predict what will happen even if we can guess at the frequencies of certain mutations.

Granted, our die could be guided - perhaps by Fortuna. Still, as far as us mortals go, it is not possible to predict what mutation will happen next. That was an interesting divergence, basically explaining the rationale behind your beliefs. I know your position regarding an IDer and your view on evolution. To reiterate my position with regards to the subtopic:I think what evos are saying is that we are unable to predict what mutation will happen when. The order that the mutations happen in can be important. Thus, we cannot predict what will happen even if we can guess at the frequencies of certain mutations.

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

This would make an interesting PNT, if you're interested I'll do the hard work. You bolded suggest, may I bold a different word: You seem to be suggesting that if the evidence infers a conclusion, that is faith. Your definition of faith is so broad it includes everything, including my conclusion that my computer is on a desk. If we take everything on faith, what use is the word.If you want to discuss faith, reasonable doubt, and science, gimme a shout and I'll write something up.

That would be bad science, you're right.What is actually said is quite different of course. What they say is more akin to "here is how species must orginate, where did they come from? Perhaps earlier species. Isn't it odd the way that life can be organised into nested hierarchies based on unique characteristics those creatures have? Perhaps this trend of speciation could happen over and over and be an explanation for the fossil record as a record of life on earth? Let's test this, if all species on earth are related we would expect to see...X. Let's look, oh look, we see X. If Y says the same thing as X we'll be onto something. Oh look we see Y. Perhaps this idea has merit...", and so on. Given that it too billions of years for multicellularity to come, I don't see why would we would expect to observe this happening in 100 years of looking. That's because macroevolution is basically defined as 'evolution that is not observed but inferred from the evidene'. The evidence that validates the claims has been presented. Its just that non-evos don't consider that validation for various reasons.

---

You are the IDer on the board, do you have a way of measuring information, or specified complexity? Then we can see if whatever it is increases. It doesn't have to be absolute numbers, but relative numbers will be fine, that way we can see the increasing or decreasing that is claimed to happen. It would be good if the ID/creo camp could validate their claim about specified complexity. If that is not possible then it would be helpful to define it so others can validate/falsify it.A while ago Dembski said: If that is still the case, then claiming that evolution cannot increase or decrease specified complexity is a curious thing indeed. This is what Dembski calls the million dollar question, does nature exhibit actual specified complexity? How is it measured?

I don't see evos having difficulty defining random. You want me to do it again for you? If I said that mutations are more random than uranium decay, you'd be justified in asking how I was measuring the randomness of each. I am not bashing the IDers imprecision in defining information. I am criticizing saying something like 'Random mutations can't cause an increase in specified complexity in the genome' when they don't know if nature exhibits specified complexity, nor do they have the ability to even define it, let alone measure it.

Natural selection isn't random, its a function of the environment. How can you say that when all scientific evidence points to the fact that not all effects have an causes(radioactive decay for example). Unless you meant cause has to have an effect which seems a funny thing to say.This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 20-February-2006 09:51 PM

I'll start a whole topic on this if you want. In quick summary, if we have two nuclei and we wait for the half life to come to pass, one of them will likely have decayed.Which one? We don't know, there is no 'cause' that makes one decay and one not decay. Obviously the whole concept has a cause, but in each instance we cannot say what caused one to decay and not the other one.Do a google search, its one of those great things about the universe that people are shocked to learn