But it's likely that the virus lost information that previously expressed as a useful function for example for the virus.
The up side is that the mutation also provided the ability for it to cross species barriers, an advantage.
No new information though.
There is proof that random change plus selection can add 'information' to a system in a similar way to evolution. I know of a few examples and there are undoubtedly more.
- Software used by paleontologists to reconstruct the motion patterns of extinct animals uses random change + selection to derive gait patterns. I have seen this demonstrated myself on a BBC television programme - possibly Walking with Dinosaurs. The animated dinosaur initially falls over in a heap, but after many generations of mutation and selection, manages to walk / run efficiently.
- Robot motion patterns have been derived in the same way
- Mutation, sexual recombination and selection have been used to derive electronic circuits and pieces of software that are as effective or more so than those derived by human designers. Here's an extract from a Scientific American article at
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=evolving-inventions
Evolution achieves these feats with a few simple processes--mutation, sexual recombination and natural selection--which it iterates for many generations. Now computer programmers are harnessing software versions of these same processes to achieve machine intelligence. Called genetic programming, this technique has designed computer programs and electronic circuits that perform specified functions.
In the field of electronics, genetic programming has duplicated 15 previously patented inventions, including several that were hailed as seminal in their respective fields when they were first announced. Six of these 15 existing inventions were patented after January 2000 by major research institutions, which indicates that they represent current frontiers of research in domains of scientific and practical importance. Some of the automatically produced inventions infringe squarely on the exact claims of the previously patented inventions. Others represent new inventions by duplicating the functionality of the earlier device in a novel way. One of these inventions is a clear improvement over its predecessor. Genetic programming has also classified protein sequences and produced human-competitive results in a variety of areas, such as the design of antennas, mathematical algorithms and general-purpose controllers. We have recently filed for a patent for a genetically evolved general-purpose controller that is superior to mathematically derived controllers commonly used in industry.
I don't know why ID proponents continue to advance the 'no information can be generated by evolution' argument in the face of evidence like this.
™ Version 4.2
