NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology?

Information like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The problem with your argument is that it is vague. You make the statement, "there are two arguments which make a case that mutation [sic] can add information"? What do you mean by "add information" and how do you measure this? Do all mutations add information?

I'm not Richard. So, let's see what your pre-conceived idea of what genetic information is. Do you mean nail it down hard such as you nailed it down hard on the number of replications necessary for a beneficial mutation to occur in the Kishony experiment? You hammered that down to between 1 and infinity. Such a scientist you are. What information are you seeing there? And what is the difference in the information from one sequence of nucleobases to another? Again, I'm not Richard. Your definitions are vague. For example, you say "this sequence of bases, in this specific order, is the information contained in this DNA segment". Are you saying that any sequences of bases has information in it? If so, that's like saying any sequence of letters can make up words, sentences, paragraphs, chapters,... You haven't defined information as it pertains to genetics and how you measure it. So, what information is your eye beholding in these genetic sequences? I think you need a rosetta stone to decipher the information in your genetic hieroglyphics.

Even Taq was able to hammer that one better than you when he calculated 3e9 replications for each beneficial mutation. How does that serve you? How much information in the sequence? Is that another one with between 1 and infinity? Such a scientist you are. And we marvel at your mathematical skills. So if the sequence is twice as long, it has between 2 and 2*infinity amount of information? Such a scientist you are. So, how much does a mutation change the information in a sequence? Is that between 1 and infinity as well? Such a scientist you are. Well, thank you for nailing down for us that genetic information is simply a sequence and it has a value of 1 to infinity. Such a scientist you are.

If you don't mind, let me give the Pauls some help. If you correlate biological fitness with information, here's an experimental example of where a mutation increases biological information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irnc6w_Gsas
What you are observing is a Markov Chain which is a second law of thermodynamics process. And of course, information and entropy are related.

Why? You don't understand how this changes the mathematics of DNA evolution. I've given you a link which introduces you to Markov models of DNA evolution:
Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia
The Jukes-Cantor model assumes the mutation rate for transversions and transitions are equal. The Kimura model takes into account that transversions and transitions have different mutation rates. But there is a fundamental assumption that is made when deriving these models that makes these models incorrect. You should study these models and try to figure out why. Then you might actually understand something about DNA evolution and the mathematics which governs this process.

You don't even have a horse in this race. You should stick with posting in the "Coffee House" and "Faith and Belief" forums. You certainly don't have the mathematical skills to be posting in the "Is it Science" and "Biological Evolution" forums. If you did have any mathematical skills, you could explain the Jukes-Cantor and Kimura models of DNA evolution and the differences between those two models. And then you could explain how to apply these models to the Kishony Mega-plate experiment. But you don't have those skills.

If you think your understanding of exons and introns can explain the mathematics of DNA evolution, do it. And if you think your understanding of exons and introns can explain mutations and how they relate to genetic information, do it.You had a good start with your posts when you calculated 3e9 replication for a beneficial mutation to occur for the Kishony Mega-plate experiment but then you stopped attempting to understand. Instead, you bring up exons and introns which really have nothing to do with DNA evolution and genetic transformation or recombination which is related to genetic transformation (and therefore phenotype) but has little effect on DNA evolution (but you don't know why). But then you stop when I ask you to explain the mathematics of random recombination. Try studying a little harder and learn and understand the mathematics of genetic transformation and what genetic information is all about. You really don't understand this subject as well as you claim you do.

If you understood the subject of population genetics, you would understand how mutations and genetic information is related to this subject. Go back to [MSG=362] and [MSG=363] and see that I am right on topic. Instead, you resort to name-calling. I'm presenting empirical and mathematical evidence. You have a superficial understanding of the empirical evidence. You showed that when you computed that it would take 3e9 replications for each beneficial mutation in the Kishony Mega-plate experiment. How does this relate to genetic information? But instead, you are either unwilling or unable to go further. Why won't you attempt to understand this subject?

The empirical evidence starts with the Kishony and Lenski experiments. And you started scratching the surface on the math with your calculation of 3e9 replication for each evolutionary step in the Kishony experiment. I already know how to do the math. If you can't do the math and you find that insulting, learn how to do the math. Genetic information has to be measured in the context of the environment. So, consider the Kishony experiment. What mutations give increased information (fitness) for that environment? And what is the rate of accumulation of that information? That is your Markov chain calculation. And if you know how to do that calculation, you will understand how DNA evolution works and how it relates to genetic information. Didn't they teach you any of this in your biology class?

I'll say it again and as many times as necessary for you to get it. DNA evolution is a Markov Chain process. From the way you are posting, it appears you have no idea what a Markov Chain process is. Here's a simple introductory video to learn how you do a Markov Chain calculation. This is part 1, it wouldn't hurt for you to watch all three parts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvYTGEZQTEs

To understand this, you first need to recognize that DNA evolution is a stochastic process (mutations occur randomly). Then, from this link:
Entropy rate - Wikipedia
"In the mathematical theory of probability, the entropy rate or source information rate of a stochastic process is, informally, the time density of the average information in a stochastic process.Since a stochastic process defined by a Markov chain that is irreducible, aperiodic and positive recurrent has a stationary distribution, the entropy rate is independent of the initial distribution."
Then, further down in this link, they show you how to compute this value for a Markov chain process:
"For example, for such a Markov chain... (equations from link which don't format correctly here) is the asymptotic distribution of the chain.A simple consequence of this definition is that an i.i.d. stochastic process has an entropy rate that is the same as the entropy of any individual member of the process."The problem with trying to apply this equation directly to actual evolutionary examples such as the Kishony and Lenski experiments (and really all examples of evolution) is that these real DNA evolutionary processes are not stationary, that is they don't go to equilibrium. At equilibrium, the distribution of bases at any site in a population no longer changes. If you look at the Markov DNA evolution models from this link:
Models of DNA evolution - Wikipedia
You will find that these models (e.g. Jukes-Cantor, Kimura) are stationary models. That is, after some period of time, the frequencies of A, C, G, and T all go to 0.25. That is 1/4 of the population will have an A base at the given site, 1/4 of the population will have a C base at the given site and likewise for the G and T bases. The Kishony and Lenski experiments get nowhere close to that distribution. What that means is that the transition matrix they are using is incorrect and that real DNA evolutionary process gets nowhere close to equilibrium.If you want to learn how information and entropy are related, get a copy of the following text:
Amazon.com
Andrews has a chapter in this book where he derives Shannon's information equation from the Boltzmann's entropy formula.The way this relates to naturalism is to do your naturalism correctly. Learn how to correlate your math to reality, not to some vision you have. Darwin recognized what the two fundamental phenomena of evolution were, what he called the struggle for existence (and what we call competition), and adaptation (what we call DNA evolution). What Darwin didn't do is quantify these phenomena. As a naturalist, you should want to quantify these concepts correctly because then you can correctly predict things such as the evolution of drug-resistance or the failure of cancer treatments.

Yep, the correct way to do the naturalism of DNA evolution. You should learn how to do it.

Yes, but only if you do the mathematics correctly and the link you posted, they don't do the mathematics correctly. And you don't know why.

Actually, Darwinian evolution is qualitatively correct. It's when you quantitate his theory that you run into problems.