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

In order to adequately discuss the issue, I'll first put forward a definition of what I mean by information in this context. Stated simply, it means organized complexity. Take the alphabet as an example; the random letters mean nothing on their own. Only when they are ordered into a complex and meaningful pattern do they take on any meaning, and thereby become information. Information is the product of a mental process, not a material one.In terms of human biology, information would be defined as the message or meaning that is derived from the ordered complexity of DNA molecules. DNA by itself means nothing unless organized into a structure that is meaningful, so DNA is not information but a medium by which information is conveyed.Evolutionary theory would require the earliest simple organisms to gain new information (ordered complexity) which would allow for new properties (ie. bone structure or body plan). However, all observations of mutations are either not moving at all or are moving in the opposite direction, meaning they are decreasing in ordered complexity or not changing at all.According to Dr. Jonathan Wells, a cell biologist at the University of Berkeley, in response to an article on this subject by Richard Dawkins:”But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variations needed for evolution ... The sorts of variations which can contribute to Darwinian evolution, however, involve things like bone structure or body plan. There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.The claim that mutations explain differences among genes, which in turn explain differences among organisms, is the Neo-Darwinian equivalent of alchemy. Compare:We know that mutations happen, and that they alter DNA sequences; organisms differ in their DNA sequences, so the differences between organisms must be due (ultimately) to mutations.We know that we can change the characteristics of metals by chemical means; lead and gold have different characteristics; therefore it must be possible to change lead into gold by chemical means.In both cases, the mechanisms invoked to explain the phenomena are incapable of doing so. Darwinists (like alchemists) have misconceived the nature of reality, and thus hitched their wagon to an imaginary horse.’So, the question is...Can you provide an example of a random mutation that is known to increase the information content of the genome?This message has been edited by Garrett, 02-13-2006 02:24 PM

To begin such a discussion it is necessary that you outline the definition as you see it.Go back and edit your original post and put in what your definition is so that there is a start point for discussion.

---

Thanks for taking this topic to the PNT forum.At the moment this looks like a suggestion for a topic rather than an actual useable opening post.What you would normally do for an opening post on a PNT is write a paragraph or two describing the issue you want to dicuss and maybe say something about your own views on the topic. you might want to give your own defintion of information for instance, or a reference to a particular definition you prefer.As it stands this isn't a suitable OP for a thread. Either use the *Edit* button to change your post or rephrase your OP and post it as a reply to this post.TTFN,AW

Sorry...this is my first topic submission. I'll work it up as you suggest and repost.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.I think when it is someones first attempt we can allow less precision. There is at least a valiant attempt to give a definition.Before you say "thanks" Garret you might want to wait for what happens when this is thrown into the lion's Den with out even a whip.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-13-2006 03:03 PM

I'd like to refer you to:
Message 51
where the requirements for a definition are spelled out.You can either meet them or explain what is wrong with them as requirements.

I need to udnerstand what Dr Wells means about certain things. For example, the sentance 'there is no evidence of beneficial mutations on a macro level' does not seem to make any sense what so ever. There are beneficial mutations.. what does Dr Wells mean 'on a macro level'? Ill defined terms make the statement meaningless.As for there being an 'increase of information', would a mutation that allows an organism to do something it could never to before. I will point out the mutation that allows a bacerium to to digest nylon waste.Brand new mutation.. brand new information.This message has been edited by ramoss, 02-13-2006 03:57 PM

"Increase the information content" seems to me to be a dubious requirement.On mutations, I found a lot of interesting information in Some mutations sound too good to be true. I suggest you take a look.Apparently some mutations result in the duplication of a segment of DNA. This increases the total size of the DNA, and ought to count as in increase in the information content.Let's look at some of your comments on information. That's fine with me. The implication is that DNA contains no information, and no information is needed for biological organisms to develop from DNA. But this view of "information" makes moot your concern about "increase in information in the genome." Now you appear to be contradicting the previous definition (the one that required information to be the product of a mental process). So which is it to be - the previous definition or this one? And if you want it to be this one, how will you define "ordered complexity"?

Yes. In the bacteria Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas the ability to break down nylon arose through selection and mutation. In Flavobacterium the enzymes required to perform this reaction were produced by bacteria living in the wastewater from a nylon factory, at some point in time after nylon was invented. Pseudomonas produced a different set of enzymes that catalyzed a similar reaction when scientists cultured it under laboratory conditions.It is important to note that for new information to come about, a selective force must act upon mutations. If there were no selection, random sequences of nucleotides would arise, rather than usable genes. Bacteria that could hydrolyze nylon were more likely to reproduce than bacteria that could not, so that particular mutation became more prevalent as time went on, until nylon-digesting bacteria were the norm in that population.

Since Garrett opened this thread in which he puts forward the argument he more or less already made in this message, I've taken the liberty to move my reply to it to this thread. That's not true. If you look at the bare mechanism of evolution, you'll see that a requirement of information gain does not follow from it. Evolution, simply put, is the effect of selective pressure on imperfect replication. The effect becomes manifest in the changes we see in populations over time."Imperfect replication" simply means that something is copied, but the copies aren't always exactly the same. It's important to realise that it doesn't matter whether the copies are somehow "richer" in information, or "poorer". All that matters is that there are differences in the gene pool, because that's what selective pressure can act on."Selective pressure" only means that the environment makes certain demands on the members of a gene pool. In principle, these demands are equal for all of them. But since the members of the gene pool themselves are not equal, some of them are better suited to meet those demand than others. This means that some of the more ill-suited members may succumb to the pressure the environment puts on them, and may not survive long enough to reach the stage where they copy themselves. The well-suited members stand a better chance of reaching that stage.For example, let's suppose a population of moths exists which is predominantly pink. There are some teal creatures, but they are rare. Further suppose something changes in the environment which poses a threat to pink moths, leaving teal ones unharmed. The above description of the mechanism of evolution should tell you that the population will change over time from predominantly pink to predominantly teal. Now suppose the environment changes again, once more giving pink moths an advantage over teal ones. Duly, the population changes back to predominantly pink.The point of this example is that it's hard to tell whether a change from one colour to the other constitutes a gain or a loss in information. It's a change, that's all you can say. But if you really want to maintain that a change from one color to another constitutes an increase in information, then the change the other way must be a loss of information. However, both changes are the result of the process of evolution, and both changes happen. Apart from what I wrote above, I'd like to point out that this statement is refuting the point of your post: if even beneficial mutations result in loss of information, then apparently loss of information isn't much of a problem. After all, the mutation is beneficial, as stated. Evolution - on whatever scale - does not require a direction of information change. If you define information as "organized complexity", then it is information change that requires evolution, not vice versa. Information change, be it gain or loss, is the result of evolution, not the prerequisite.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 13-Feb-2006 10:33 PM

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Jon Wells is not a cell biologist at the University of Berkely, of which there is no such place.He is a fellow at the Discovery Institute, a right-wing propaganda mill.

Sorry to "pile on", but I wrote this in another thread, and I think it should be stated here:

quote:

---

Is there an example of a known natural process that will increase the information content?

---

Maybe, maybe not. So far I have not seen a real definition of information. As NosyNed said in his response, you need to provide a definition of "information". To be a scientific definition, it must meet the following requirements:(1) Since the claim is that information cannot increase, information must be a number. So you must provide a means of calculating this number. Given the genome of a random organism, show us how to calculate the "information" for that genome. If you cannot do this, then your statement is meaningless.(2) You must show that no process can make this number increase. Given a genome of an orgainism, and the genome of the same organism but with one or two mutations, you must show that when you calculate the information of these two genomes, the number associated with the second is less than that of the first. I would prefer a description of physical mechanisms that prevent this; however, a mathematical proof will be interesting provided you list the simplifications and assumptions that you make. If you cannot do this, then your claim is simply an undemonstrated assertion.(3) You must show that this concept of "information" is relevant to the theory of evolution. That is, you must show why the evolution of, say, a semi-quadripedal ape into modern humans involves an increase of "information" and so cannot happen (provided that you have completed step (2) above). If you cannot do this, then your claim is irrelevant to evolution and may be ignored.-End of old message.If you are going to speak of evolution "increasing information" and claim that "no mutation has ever resulted in an increase in information", then we need to be able to calculate a number. You have tried to explain "information" in the OP, but that explanation fails to satisfy the three criteria I have mentioned here. And unless you can calculate a number and show that that number is relevant to evolution, then you simply have not said anything meaningful.This is a common mistake, of course. People have intuitive ideas, but when they try to see how their intuitive ideas correspond to actual reality they find that the ideas are very incomplete. It is when this realization occurs and the ideas fleshed out in a more scientifically precise and rigorous fashion that real progress is made.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Evolution isn't usually studied from an information perspective. The only reason it comes up is because of the creationist objection that only intelligence can create new information, and that therefore evolution is impossible.The error in this creationist assertion is easily pointed out. This is from Message 15: In other words, a mere copying error during cell division can create new information.--Percy

It appears that you aren't using the "right" definition of information Percy.Garret hints at a different one in the OP. However, it isn't an adequate definition yet so we'll have to wait for him to forumlate one based on what he is trying to capture before we can do such calculations.

Hi Nosy,I tried to answer this question from the OP: I think the ambiguity in the OP may be due to Garrett's lack of understanding of the Creationist claim and that he's not making original claims regarding information not seen here before. I know he talks about information having meaning, and we can come back to that if he wants to. Interestingly, he is dead on when he says that DNA is not information but only a communication medium, though we don't usually take this particular perspective in discussions here. Anyway, I didn't want to spend too much time on this until he demonstrates he's going to stick with it.--Percy