Examples of new information

In many experiments, we can check this very easily. We can see that gene switching is not a possibility by looking at the actual DNA sequence and finding the mutation; and we can check that it is not a result of lateral gene transfer (of plasmids or anything else) by using a clonal line --- that is, you do the experiment starting with just one bacterium, yeast cell, or whatever.In the case of the nylon-eating bacteria which Percy mentioned, the first condition holds but not the second, since this development occurred in nature and not in the laboratory. (However, one might in lieu of it consider the fact that prior to the invention of nylon, a nylon-eating bacterium would have starved to death, so common sense suggests that the development of the gene must involve a novel mutation.)However, there are plenty of experiments where both conditions apply --- we can identify the mutation, and we can be certain that the founder of the population didn't have it. One example would be Lenski's experiment, which you may have read about.Afterthought added by edit: another way we can rule out gene switching is if we can watch the process of change and know that it didn't happen immediately. If it was a pre-programmed response to environmental factors, then it would take place on introduction to the organism into the new environment, whereas if the change is a result of genuine evolution this will hardly ever be the case. So it is not always necessary to look at the gene directly.For example, when we watch the evolution of multicellularity in chlorella, not only does it not happen instantly, but we can observe several steps in the process as the first crude mutation is progressively refined to the optimal form. If this change was pre-programmed, then we'd see every organism in the experiment switch to the optimal form within the first generation, would we not? If it looks like evolution and quacks like evolution, it's probably evolution.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I love the last comment on that page. You could show it to kids and explain that this is why they shouldn't get into ID --- "this is your brain, and this is your brain on creationism ..."

What he means by gene switching is, well, gene switching. That is, he very reasonably wants assurance that the novel characteristics of the organism are not caused by the switching on and off of pre-existing genes as a pre-programmed response to a novel environment. Your example is therefore unnecessarily complicated (besides being hypothetical).

Well, yes, we do seem to be done apart from the bit where d4r says "thank you". Edited because d4r isn't a creationist, he's just talking like one for no apparent reason.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, if you look at the DNA directly you can see where the mutation is and so what it's affecting, whether it's in protein-coding DNA or something else.I'm not sure why you think it matters, can you expound on this? Well, there aren't bacteria using it for something else. Well, yes it does. Why do you think it doesn't?If gene X is switched on as a consequence of environmental stimulus Y, then you'd see the whole bacterial culture switching on gene X in the first generation exposed to stimulus Y. Genes controlling cell division, natch. I can't find the full text of the relevant articles, just abstracts, but I don't think the researchers did look at the DNA, that's why I gave it as an example of something that one could deduce wasn't gene switching by other means.The original experiment was done, so to speak, by accident. Dinoflagellates (single-celled predators) got into a culture of chlorella (single-celled prey), which was not what the experimenters wanted to happen. It was lucky for them they didn't just throw it out, but investigated what was going on.One way chlorella can avoid predation is simply to get too big for the dinoflagellates to eat, and this is what happened.Now, my reasons for thinking that this wasn't gene switching are as follows:* The change was not immediate and universal.* The first change was that cell division was interfered with to such an extent that big blobs of as many of a hundred cells were formed. This has the advantage that the chlorella couldn't be eaten; it has the disadvantage (one presumes) that the cells on the inside would find it difficult to acquire nutrients. The chlorella then tended towards an eight-celled form which was still too big to eat but in which every cell was on the outside of the cluster. Wouldn't gene switching jump to this form immediately?* This never happens in the wild. Why not? Because in the wild chlorella is not just preyed upon by single-celled predators such as dinoflagellates. A clump of chlorella is too big for a dinofalgellate, it's a tasty meal for a fish. Why would chlorella have a genetic switch just to cope with conditions only met with in the laboratory?* When the eight-celled forms were transferred to an environment without dinoflagellates, their descendants continued to have the eigth-celled form. Now, this would be something unique in gene switching --- a gene which can be turned on, but can't then be turned off, and is inherited stuck in the on position.So I think this is a good example of what I'm talking about --- in this case, even if we don't directly look at the DNA, it seems safe to conclude that we're looking at the results of mutation.

I think it's the other way round.The acquisition of new functions is precisely what adaptive evolution is all about, and asking to see it happening (in appropriately small quantities) is a perfectly legitimate request. Dragging the language of information theory into the discussion is the boondoggle, unless at some point creationists propose to do any actual math with it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.