Can mutation and selection increase information?

RAZD writes:So maybe a useful parameter would be DNA function. We can measure genes and we can find cross links between genes in doing certain functions. It's not just the number of genes then, but also how they interact.

Taq writes:Additionally, I have yet to see a creationist demonstrate that evolution needs to produce "new genetic information" in order to produce all the species we see today from a universal common ancestor. In my experience, they define "new genetic information" so that the mechanisms of evolution can not produce it, but in the process their definition no longer has any bearing on actual biology.

Faith writes:Would you please explain to me how genes duplicate? Since they occupy a position along the DNA strand, and they are thousands of codons long, and the replication process follows the strand codon by codon how does a copy of a gene get separately inserted into the strand?

Faith writes:Well, I'd been assuming that new information WAS needed for all the diversity of life to exist, because that's often claimed, but now I don't think anything new is needed, it was all built in to the original genome of each Kind at Creation, most or all of it provided through genes for traits made up of two and only two forms or alleles. As I showed on the thread about YEC supposedly needing mutations and positive selection, a mere two genes with two alleles each provide sixteen different versions of a trait simply by combining the effects of the four different proteins produced by the four different alleles. Since many traits have quite a few more genes than two the possible variation in only one trait is enormous.No mutations needed, no extra alleles needed, just the combining of the two-form genes through sexual recombination. (I'm only thinking of sexually reproducing creatures).

Faith writes:I would figure it had managed to replicate an existing allele probably at another gene,.....

Faith writes:.....not anything actually new, but so far I'm not convinced that anything new at all, even in that sense, is ever created by a mutation.Evidence you gave on the other thread was all based on a supposed high frequency which I think is just an illusion based on assuming a new allele instead of a neutral mutation which doesn't change the protein or the function of the original allele.

Faith writes:If that paper is above Percy's pay grade as he put it, it's certainly above mine. I read what I was able to read, and nothing you said gave evidence that new alleles actually exist. As I keep saying the "evidence" of supposed positive selection shown by increased frequency is an illusion if the allele in question is really a neutral mutation, which would be passed on and easily look like increased frequency based on your assumption.You seem to think that paper actually shows that new alleles give immunity to different parasites, but it doesn't. It assumes it.

CRR writes:Does the theory of evolution require a gain of copious quantities of genetic information?Yes it does. Both in Darwin's formulation and in the modern neo-Darwinian version, although Darwin of course knew nothing of genes or DNA.Both versions believe that the all life on Earth is ascended from primitive ancestors. Darwin lacked the evidence to definitely say only one ancestor but he made it clear that it was his belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. Most proponents of the modern version, on the evidence of DNA, definitely conclude there was a Last Universal Common Ancestor.In both versions this common ancestor is envisaged as some simple life form of minimal complexity.In the modern version with a genetic basis this is supposed to be a single celled organism with a minimal functioning genome, perhaps only a few hundred genes. Some believe this ancestor arose naturally on Earth from non-living matter, some propose panspermia, and some believe it was created by God.However this original life form did not contain or produce more than a fraction of the genes and proteins life today. Nor did it have multi-cellularity, specialised tissues, organs, and appendages. All of these are supposed to have been produced by evolution over billions of years. [F]rom so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.Now I say that to produce all these new attributes would require a vast increase in genetic information. Not only to produce all the new proteins but also to regulate them and to produce the multitude of body plans we see today.Some object to calling this genetic information, saying such a term is meaningless until it can be measured and quantified. Even Shannon Information could not be measured and quantified until Claude Shannon published A Mathematical Theory of Communication in 1948. This did not mean such information did not exist before then. Just so, even if it can't currently be quantified no reasonable person doubts that this genetic information exists. As I have shown in previous posts progress is being made in measuring and quantifying functional information; but the information already exists or it could not measured.Conclusion: The Theory of Evolution;
Has a direction. It is attempting to explain microbes to man, not the reverse
Requires the development of multicellularity, specialised tissues, organs, and complex body plans
This development requires the production of new genes and genetic information; in copious quantities

CRR writes:It is the theory of evolution that relies on the gain of copious quantities of genetic information. Creationists are just asking how the theory can be taken seriously when the evidence is that the mutation selection mechanism appears to be insufficient to explain where that information comes from.

Vlad writes:The most significant post From "junk" to genes: De Novo information (bluegenes) has forced me to join the discussion.
Being a dedicated amateur evolutionist, I some time ago have come to the utterly surprising conclusion that biological evolution is a self-learning process: evolution all the time has been learning (by doing) how to better evolve. That is, the evolutionary process has incepted as a blind watchmaker, yet it eventually ascended to the intelligent design heights. At that, there is nothing supernatural here — just the prose of cybernetics.
Two significant circumstances prompted the conclusion: first, the presence of enormous "junk" DNA amounts in eukaryotic genomes. And, second, the absence of any chances for multi-cellular eukaryotes to accidentally evolve as fast as they actually did. The truth is in measure: even if we were of opinion that accidental changes could have effectively promoted the evolution of prokaryotes, this wouldn’t account for the evolution of comparatively very thin eukaryotic species.

vlad writes:Suppose, being viable, the form bit is also more or less fit (say, rated by the Google Ngram Viewer statistics) with regard to certain — say, the English literary — environment. Then the clone bit would grow in number exponentially, and from time to time, some (point) mutations inevitably would happen. Mutant forms would spontaneously emerge: ait, , bt, , bite, , rbit, , etc.In general, any appellative noun is considered viable — granted, first, it comprises at least three characters of the Roman alphabet. And second, it is present in a dictionary of at least one of the languages which make use of this very alphabet.

Vlad writes:Bluegenes comments right on the point. Of course, without constraints, there is no such thing as function..........The thing is that living entities spontaneously evolve,...

Vlad writes:Spontaneous evolution takes place, in the model, and you may trace various feasible paths of advancement yourself. And also evaluate the probabilities of evolutionary progressions up to some interesting forms. Of course the accidental emergence of a new viable form by no means always signifies any quantitative increase in information content. Say, mutant form bat is quite viable yet the quantity of information it carries remains the same as in the primordial noun bit.