Increases in Genetic Information

Since no one has cited any obscure scientific studies that stand completely alone with no correspondence to the rest of science, and since it's very likely that no one intends to or would even see any reason to, I'm sure your intention to ignore such studies is just fine with everyone and will have no impact on this discussion. Actually, the truth is that there is bias everywhere, which is why science demands evidence, replication and consensus, as opposed to the many religious faiths which see little problem in such a huge panoply since they just declare all faiths but their own wrong because the other's tenets do not align with their own. The above is your response to Dr Adequate's complaints about your approach in the Can the standard "Young Earth Creationist" model be falsified by genetics alone? thread. After reading your four posts in that thread I can see that his complaints were pretty much right on the money. You know what you believe, which has no science behind it at all, and you're not willing to invest the time and effort to understand the research behind what science believes. Even worse, you're apparently willing to level unsubstantiated accusations against the research, calling it obscure and unreplicated. We *do* have the entire human genome, you know. It's not like analyses of the Y-chromosome can be flights of fancy without it being transparently obvious. Well, that's quite complicated. Someone who can't even muster the effort to wade through a couple technical papers would likely be unable to ever master such a thing. Whatever you do, be sure to avoid the "help" link about dBCodes that appears to the left of message box where you enter your message. If you think those technical papers were over your head, well, I just shudder to think...--Percy

We're getting hung up on the definition of species. I think JBozz may not realize that the definition of species is well understood to be fuzzy and problematic. No single species definition suffices to cover all circumstances. One definition classifies tigers and lions as the same species (genetic compatibility), another as different species (exclusion of non-natural mating). Which definition is correct?I think most people in this thread not only understand that the answer to the species question isn't particularly relevant to how genetic information can increase, but also that there is no proper answer to which definition is correct. Classification is both a convenience and a generalization. When you dive down into the details a classification system can often become insufficient, and then you have to begin considering the details that the classification system glosses over. So maybe we can move on from the discussion about the definition of species.The last post I noticed that dealt a bit more directly with the topic was Message 35, and no one's answered it yet.--Percy

Dr A was just calling to your attention that you had made a very obvious error when you accused Darwin of just assuming the finches of the Galapagos were different species. He wasn't a bird expert. Upon his return he called upon bird specialists to perform species identification.Looking up Darwin's finches at Wikipedia to get more detail, something you could have done yourself, I see that Darwin was mistaken in his initial attempts at identifying the birds. He apparently thought them black birds, grosbeaks and finches, but he gave them to an ornithologist named John Gould in order to obtain a professional opinion, and Gould identified them as 12 different finch species. Today we still believe these finches comprise a number of different species. Do you have reason to believe they are not different species? If so, then would you, in your own words, "Care to back that up?"And it wasn't that they were different species that he considered evidence for common descent. It was their similarity to mainland species, and the way they had apparently adapted to niches not normally occupied by finches, and which was the reason that Darwin didn't even realize that some of them were finches. If you've been reading all the messages in this thread then you know that the definition of species is problematic. No one definition will serve all of life, the division into sexual and non-sexual species being one area of great difference requiring different definitions, and the division into single-celled versus multi-cellular being another great difference requiring different definitions.Even if you just consider mammals there are problems. If there are two populations and only 5% of individuals are mutually interfertile, then are they the same species? What if it's only 1% or 0.1%. What if females of species A mating with males of species B results in fertile individuals, but not the other way around - would they be the same species? What if we had the same situation but the offspring are infertile - would they be the same species?The answers to these questions are unimportant. Any large scale classification system like the one used by biology must gloss over a great many details. If you want to know whether squirrels and chipmunks are different species then it has the answer. But when you consider closely related species then our classification system cannot provide easy answers and you have to begin looking at the details. This is because speciation happens gradually, not suddenly. Two populations of the same species that gradually become more and more different will have differing levels of interfertility over time. At one point nearly 100% of individuals would be interfertile, but over time as the two populations become more and more different the interfertility percentage becomes less and less. At some point in time 75% of individuals will be mutually interfertile, then later it will become 50%, then 25%, then 10%, then 5%, then 1%, and less and less as even more time passes and finally it becomes 0%. At what point along this progression are they different species?What you need to understand is that the answer to this question isn't particularly important to the issue of whether genetic information can increase. There are plenty of genetic events that increase information, but no single genetic event can create a new species. New species come about over a long period of time and after a great number of genetic events.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix grammar.

Yes it is. And the entire history of prejudice and discrimination informs us that the human mind has no difficulty whatsoever making up reasons for what it doesn't like.I know someone said something about paleontology that you disagreed with, but now that you've indicted paleontology in particular and science in general maybe you could address the topic.--Percy

Wikipedia says "250+ papers", not doctoral theses. 250+ papers is perfectly believable, since in a lifetime an active scientist will produce many papers, and because Piltdown Man received a great deal of attention at the time. Which quickly died away as it became evident that Piltdown Man was an outlier that didn't fit with the rest of the fossil record as it existed at the time, and its outlier status only became more evident with time. By the time fraud was demonstrated it had been ignored in paleontological circles for decades.But "500 doctoral dissertations that were written between 1908 and 1953" is not believable, because most scientists will in their lifetime produce only one. And look at the beginning date you gave of 1908. Perhaps you can explain how students produced doctoral theses in 1908 about a discovery that wasn't made until 1912?I know the micro versus macroevolution argument was present in the thread's opening post, but as has been pointed out, the thread's originator was mistaken in believing it is relevant to the thread's central focus, which is increases in genetic information.--Percy

You've been given examples already, so since you're still asking for examples I have to wonder if it has anything to do with your placing quotation marks around "observed." If only eyewitness evidence is acceptable to you then there's very little knowledge on any subject you should accept, including that the Bible was written by God. Whether a change provides an advantage depends upon the environment. A mutation conferring the ability to digest the plastic in pop bottles would be a great boon to a bacteria living in a landfill, and of no use whatsoever to one living in the jungle. Since the effects of mutations are random with respect to the environment most mutations will not confer an advantage, but some do, and those are selected for and persist and then spread through a population. But in any case, we've also provided examples of advantageous mutations. Every human being's genome, including yours, has some number of mutations (average is somewhere between 50 and 100), which represent "completely new information that did not exist." Or how about the ability to digest lactose, which we know today appeared around 5000 years ago due to the T-13910 mutation (see the Wikipedia article on lactase persistence for more details, the full story is fairly interesting).--Percy

Yes, you understand correctly. Any mutation represents new information. When a DNA codon changes from, say, ATG to CTG, that is new information that wasn't there before.Just to provide a couple details about adult lactose digestion, the T-13910 mutation appears in the MCM6 regulatory gene that controls the activity level of the LCT gene that controls production of the LPH enzyme that enables lactose metabolization (Encyclopedia of Molecular Mechanisms of Disease - Google Books).Obviously a change from one state (lactose intolerance) to another (lactose digestion) requires a novel change to the information underlying the process, but I think I understand why you're dismissing this as not new information. Your thinking is that lactose digestion is not new, that it's just an already existing process that with a certain mutation continues on into adulthood. You want an entire new process or organ or body part to appear before you're willing to concede that new information is involved.But very simple mutations like the SNP's (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, i.e., a change to a single nucleotide) cannot create entire new processes, organs or body parts. Evolution is a gradual process where tiny mutations accumulate over time to create large-scale changes. It would take many, many mutations and many, many generations of selection for a new process, organ or body part to appear. At no point during this lengthy process would you be able to say that a brand new process, organ or body part appeared between one generation and next. Only the tiniest of changes can occur between generations. To create large-scale change requires many generations. You can only tell that something novel has appeared by comparing creatures that are separated by thousands and thousands of generations.But each generation receives new information, because every mutation, even very simple ones, represents new information.--Percy

No, I didn't miss it. Perhaps you missed the rebuttals? But anything worth rebutting is worth rebutting again, so what the heck."Specified information" is a term made up by creationists, specifically William Dembski. Let us know when he comes up with a working definition that allows "specified information" to be measured and quantified. Until then his only contribution was to make up technical-sounding synonyms for "things people can do." Mutations. In other news, sun rises this morning.I have a feeling that at the foundation of your position lies a misunderstanding of information theory. Any copying error during reproduction will, by definition, introduce new information.Returning to your current message: I don't think anyone here (other than creationists) shrugs their shoulders at evidence, but we have as much evidence for an intelligent designer as we do for unicorns. If you're sure you responded to all of them then I'll just take your word for it, but that has nothing to do with my point. We presented evidence of advantageous mutations, and you presented your excuses for why you're ignoring that evidence. Well, now we're back to where we started, with me pondering whether your continued requests for examples has something to do with your definition of "observation." Again, if eyewitness evidence is the only type acceptable to you then there's very little knowledge on any subject you should accept, including that the Bible was written by God or that there was a flood 4500 years ago.--Percy

Your welcome! Stick around, you won't believe the other incredibly obvious things I might admit. Who knows, the coming weeks might see me admit the Earth is round, the sky is blue, and rain is wet.Seriously, did you really think people were trying to hide the fact that evolution is a gradual process? If it somehow didn't already get mentioned in this thread then that's only because since you're new here people don't yet know what you don't know. This is almost self-evidently wrong. Let me take you through a simple thought exercise.Let's say an ATG codon becomes CTG and that this simple point mutation destroys a creature's ability to manufacture vitamin C. But another simple point mutation to this new CTG codon transforms it back to an ATG codon and restores the creature's ability to manufacture vitamin C. So obviously mutations can be both beneficial and deleterious.Mutations are random copying errors that occur at some point during the reproductive process. For this reason whatever impact they have will be random with respect to the environment. As you correctly noted, most mutations will not be beneficial. The vast majority of mutations will have no effect (there's a lot of DNA that plays little to no active role), most of the remainder will be deleterious, and only a tiny, tiny fraction of mutations will be beneficial.But beneficial mutations tend to accumulate in a population because they confer an advantage and are selected for by natural selection.Regarding increases in genetic information, any simple point mutation can result in an increase or decrease in information, or of course no change at all. For an example of no change in information consider the TTA and TTG codons that both code for Leucine. If a TTA codon were to experience a mutation and become TTG it would have no effect on the amount of information.But what if an ATA codon in a stretch of non-functional DNA were to experience a mutation that changed it to an ATG codon, which is the start codon. Suddenly we have a new active region and a whole lot more information. And of course there are many other kinds of copying accidents that represent different kinds of mutations.So most mutations, especially if they're point mutations, will have no effect, some will have tiny effects, and some will have significant effects. And of those that have an effect, most will be deleterious, but a tiny, tiny fraction will be beneficial.So obviously an increase in genetic information that provides a selective advantage can occur and has occurred, as the examples in this thread illustrate.By the way, lactase persistence spread through populations that had dairy skills because it provided a selective advantage. The mutation is absent in those parts of the world with no dairy background in their history.--Percy

Well, that's wonderful, but you're responding to the sarcasm and ignoring the point. Do you now understand that not only is evolution a gradual process, but that no one is trying to hide, or could even think of a reason to want to hide, that evolution is a gradual process? Darwin described evolution as a slow and gradual process in Origin of Species over a hundred and fifty years ago, it's not like it's a secret. Why would you think I was presenting evidence for evolution? I described an example of a process that is part of evolution, not evidence. Whyever would you think I was trying to present evidence?I was just trying to help you understand the double-edged sword of mutation. You seemed to be under the misimpression that mutations only destroy, in your own words, "That is all that mutations do, is they destroy." So I described an example of a mutation that is deleterious in one direction and beneficial in the other. Since mutations can be both beneficial and deleterious, which you later concede anyway, the statement that mutations only destroy is incorrect. I didn't say whether or not the mutation was in a regulatory gene or in the primary gene. It could have been either way. The original mutation could have been a mutation to a regulatory gene causing vitamin C production to be turned off, or it could have been a mutation to the primary gene destroying its ability to manufacture vitamin C. Either way the effect is the same.The reverse mutation would have restored the ability to manufacture vitamin C. From the point of view of a creature competing in its environment it doesn't matter how, genetically, an ability is gained or lost.I do understand your comment about a gene "existing since creation." What interests you isn't minor genetic twiddling that turns existing abilities on and off (despite their obvious impact on a creatures ability to compete). You want evidence of something like the manufacture vitamin C evolving from scratch. And you don't want indirect evidence through the analysis of DNA in various animal populations. You want direct evidence through observation of it happening in real time.And I think we would all be ecstatic if that were possible, but it's not. The inactive GULOP pseudogene for vitamin C in humans has over 600 nucleotides*. It would take many many thousands and thousands of generations for a gene of even this modest size to evolve from scratch.So for direct evidence of genetic change causing beneficial change we are forced to consider only what can reasonably happen in a human lifetime, which is only very tiny changes, usually SNP's (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). If we could run experiments lasting tens of thousands of years then we could produce the direct evidence you want, but we can't.So we are forced to do detective work, analyzing the DNA of populations to produce gene histories. When we do this detective work on the human vitamin C GULOP gene we find evidence telling us that primates lost the ability of manufacture vitamin C about 63 million years ago (Wikipedia article on L-gulonolactone oxidase).The nested hierarchy of life is also revealed by such genetic studies, something that is certainly inconsistent with some entity manufacturing life. Dogs and most other mammals do not need external sources of vitamin C because, unlike humans, guinea pigs and some bats, dogs never lost the ability to manufacture vitamin C. Giving dogs a working vitamin C gene and humans a broken vitamin C gene is something else inconsistent with a life manufacturing entity. But given that almost every reproductive event includes copying errors that introduce mutations into genomes, broken genes are something evolution expects. Yes, you're absolutely right. That's not only what evolution predicts, that's exactly what we see when we examine the human GULOP gene. Shortly after its ability to produce vitamin C was lost it probably would have been possible for simple mutations to restore that ability. But as time passed with each generation contributing more mutations the further removed the gene would have become from a functioning vitamin C gene. And the mutations the gene accumulated while inactive could not have benn selected against. This is because since the gene was inactive and had no effect, mutations in this gene could not have an effect, either. Yes, of course it would cause lots of problems for the organism. As we've been saying, most mutations are deleterious. Turning a random segment of DNA into active form could be highly devastating. But sometimes it's beneficial, and beneficial mutations are selected for, preserved, passed on to succeeding generations, propagated throughout populations. Actually, yes at all. Read your own link, the section on genetics at the bottom. The populations you list that possess lactose intolerance do not have any history of cattle farming, hence there was no advantage to them for evolving lactase persistence. Any mutations for lactase persistence that might have occurred in these populations would not have been selected for.But because of the great nutritional advantages of milk, any lactase persistence mutations experienced by human populations possessing cattle technology would have been strongly selected for.--Percy*Here are some links for genetic data on the human GULOP gene:

• GULOP Gene - GeneCards | GULOP Pseudogene
• http://www.genenames.org/data/hgnc_data.php?hgnc_id=4695
• Homo sapiens GULO gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, exon 7 - Nucleotide - NCBI

Edited by Percy, : Fix second link in list in footnote.

Yes, of course it is nonsense. (By the way, instead of [qs][b]Percy:[/b] you can just use [qs=Percy].)Really? You called it nonsense, so what's that make you? Maybe you could keep your focus on the topic instead of attempting to psychoanalyze your fellow participants. When you're ready to deal with what I actually said about Dembski and "specified information" then you just let us know, okay? Except for your apparent dislike of the "complex" modifier, you're just describing Dembki's theory, which let me remind you again you called nonsense. Dembski provided no method or analytical technique for determining whether information was specified, and you don't seem to have one either. All you really have is what everyone else also has, the ability to say whether or not something appears to have been produced by people. For those things falling into an indeterminate category you have nothing. You also have no definition of intelligence, and so no basis for saying whether something was produced by an intelligence. How is adding or subtracting an ingredient for a recipe not a change in information? As I said, I have a feeling that at the foundation of your position lies a misunderstanding of information theory. Any copying error during reproduction will, by definition, introduce new information.--Percy