Information Changes in DNA by logical Analysis

I think Dr. Adequate is referring to the section A Mathemtical Argument in your linked page.I don't think it actually works, because of this section:

quote:

---

If one mutation decreases information, then the opposite mutation must increase it; otherwise, it would be possible for a DNA sequence to undergo two successive opposite mutations, leaving it back exactly how it started, and to have undergone a net decrease of information compared to the original, with which it is identical, in violation of condition 2. It follows that if some mutations decrease information, then others must increase it.
  —SkepticWiki

---

The problem here is that the first mutation applies to the original sequence, whereas the second mutation applies to the modified sequence; they do not both refer to the same sequence. Essentially, it's like arguing that there must be a change in letter in the sentence 'I don't think it actually works' that increases the information content of the sentence because after I've corrupted it to 'I dok't think it actually works' changing it back again corrects the error.Edited by Mr Jack, : Correction

The problem as I see it is that the argument only shows that a mutation that increases information exists only in the space of all possible genes; not that it applies to any gene currently kicking around in living things. I'm sure that a Creationist would argue that all information containing genes were created at the beginning. And they'd concede the argument shows it's possible to reverse a previous degeneration but not that it shows that it's possible to create de novo information.

None of which touchs on the point I made. Creationists aren't talking about arbitarily chosen DNA sequences; they're talking about the real coding sequences found in real genomes. That you could theoretically have a sequence one different from theirs is a trivial truth tangential to what they're actually arguing.

There aren't any bits in the genome there are nucleotides in them.If you mean: if you represent the string of nucleotides using bits in an encoding where two bits represent each nucleotide (such as 00 = C, 01 = G, 10 = T, 11 = A) then why don't you just bloody say so instead of pointlessly shouting bits like an idiot?

While this is notionally true, how do you propose to do this - in the case of DNA - without having a measure of information?

---

This message is a reply to:
	Message 64 by Percy, posted 10-19-2009 8:31 PM		Percy has replied

---

Replies to this message:
	Message 76 by Percy, posted 10-20-2009 9:37 AM		Dr Jack has not replied

---

Profile

Reply    Peek

I don't think so. What the argument presented shows is that for a starting set E of information encoding genomes (taken from the set of possible genomes G) you can constuct a set A for which a mutation will increase information by transforming them into stated set E. This does not show that you can reach set E from an arbitarily selected genome g in set G.