Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 310 (286247)
02-13-2006 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Garrett
02-13-2006 12:00 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Garrett, posted 02-13-2006 12:00 PM Garrett has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 310 (286502)
02-14-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Garrett
02-14-2006 1:26 PM


Re: Information Test
quote:
The data on how to determine this is provided in one of my previous posts.
I've seen those links before. If you read them, you'll see that the content lacks the precision needed to make the necessary qualitative calculations.
-
quote:
The fact that they have different information is all that is important.
So now "information" has a qualitative aspect as well as quantitative? I doubt this very much. I think that if you go down this path you will find yourself at a dead end very, very quickly. In fact:
-
quote:
For instance, a pig doesn't have the genetic instructions needed to generate wings (until pigs fly that is). Conversely, a bird has no genetic instructions for a little curly tail.
I hate to break it to you, but a pig doesn't have genetic "instructions" for a curly tail either, nor does a bird have "instructions" to form a wing. The genome is not a blue print, nor a set of "instructions". But I'll let the experts on embryology and development explain how this works in more detail.
The important thing is that you haven't changed your argument, and so the same criticisms apply. You haven't presented any kind of argument why a species couldn't acquire "information" (whatever that is) that would result, over many generations, in a winged species.
-
One interesting point that no one has yet talked about is that evolution is established fact. There are multiple lines of evidence in many fields using different methodologies and observational techniques. I suggest you study the supplied link carefully.
So, if your mathematical model does suggest that evolution is impossible, then that would contradict the vast amount of obersvational evidence that evolution has occurred! So, how would you reconcile this paradox? In science, if a mathematical model predicts something that is not, in fact, true, then it is the mathematical model that is deemed inadequate. Why would you place more faith in an abstract mathematical model, like "information theory", than in the actual observations made by many, many different scientists working in many, many different fields, using many, many different experimental and observational methodologies? Well, even if you can explain why you would do this, why should I ignore actual facts and data and logical and reasonable interpretations of those data just because someone thinks the have a "mathematical model" that says otherwise?

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 1:26 PM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 02-14-2006 1:52 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 68 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 2:11 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 310 (286508)
02-14-2006 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by randman
02-14-2006 1:52 PM


a clarification
Actually, I was talking about what you would call "macroevolution", which is also established fact. We can discuss the evidence that firmly establishes it as fact, but that would be the subject of another thread. Probably many threads. In fact, you have already taken part in some of them.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by randman, posted 02-14-2006 1:52 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 02-14-2006 1:58 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 310 (286515)
02-14-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by randman
02-14-2006 1:58 PM


Re: a clarification
I am not sure where you got the idea that I am claiming that "microevolution" proves macroevolution. I am not saying that at all.
I am saying that macroevolution is established fact. If you disagree that it is established fact, then bring it to the appropriate threads.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 02-14-2006 1:58 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by AdminNosy, posted 02-14-2006 3:41 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 310 (286520)
02-14-2006 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Garrett
02-14-2006 2:11 PM


Re: Information Test
quote:
Wikipedia disagrees with you on the function of DNA I'm afraid:
Not important to my argument, so I won't go into details. If someone wants to explain how development works, then I'll leave the task up to them.
-
quote:
As to why a species can't acquire information...it's because no known natural process can create specified complexity. In other words, no unintelligent process would know how to arrange the strand in an order that had any meaning to the translator.
Just repeating the same statements over again with, perhaps, different words does not make them true, nor does it make for a cogent argument.
-
quote:
As to evolution being a fact...you are obviously referring to microevolution (ie. adaptation, natural selection) since macroevolution (ie. goo-to-you) is completely unrepeatable.
No, I am stating that what you call "macroevolution" is established fact. As I have told randman (who also seems to be having trouble understanding this seemingly simple statement), if you want to dispute that then you can take it to the appropriate threads.
However, seeing that evolution has occurred, that humans did evolve from non-human apes, that mammals did evolve from amphibians, that birds did evolve from dinosaurs, and that all known life does have a common ancestor, then any mathematical model that says that this is impossible must be flawed.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Garrett, posted 02-14-2006 2:11 PM Garrett has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 02-14-2006 2:24 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 310 (286528)
02-14-2006 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by randman
02-14-2006 2:24 PM


Re: Information Test
Not the point of the thread. If you want to chew up another thread where you ignore clear evidence and logical inferences then start a new one.
This thread concerns itself whether random mutations can increase "information" in the genome. My point is that if there is evidence that shows that evolution has occurred, then there is a flaw in any mathematical model that suggests otherwise. You (and Garrett) don't have to accept that there is such evidence, but the rest of us do, so my question remains.
Seeing that there is so much evidence in favor of evolution, or, if you prefer, seeing how the rest of us see so much evidence in favor of evolution, then why do you expect us to take seriously a mathematical model that suggests otherwise?

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 02-14-2006 2:24 PM randman has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 310 (286588)
02-14-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by AdminNosy
02-14-2006 3:41 PM


Huh?
I don't understand your comment since a careful reading of the post to which you linked would show that I was saying the same thing.
However, in a subsequent post I made the statement:
However, seeing that evolution has occurred, that humans did evolve from non-human apes, that mammals did evolve from amphibians, that birds did evolve from dinosaurs, and that all known life does have a common ancestor, then any mathematical model that says that this is impossible must be flawed.
Could you make a determination whether that is on topic?

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by AdminNosy, posted 02-14-2006 3:41 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 310 (287261)
02-16-2006 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by FliesOnly
02-16-2006 9:43 AM


Re: How to measure complexity
quote:
Discussions involving complexity come up quite often in this forum. Generally I avoid them because, not being a math wiz...by and large, they give me a headache.
Well, I am a math wiz, and those discussions give me a headache, too.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by FliesOnly, posted 02-16-2006 9:43 AM FliesOnly has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 310 (287581)
02-17-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Garrett
02-17-2006 9:22 AM


Re: Question outstanding!
quote:
Until you can produce evidence of mutations that lead to changes above the species level, you are relying on faith to hold that position.
Well, evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming -- the evidence exists in many different fields of biology, and is observed by many different scientists using a variety of different observational and experimental methodologies. The evidence is so overwhelming that we can safely say that evolution is an established fact.
Now, the only process that we know of that produces heritable variation is genetic mutations. We do observe genetic mutations, so they exist, and we have no other mechanism for inheretance, and so we can safely say that the evidence does suggest, quite strongly, that mutations (with natural selection) lead to changes above the species level.
No faith required.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 9:22 AM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 10:09 AM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 257 by randman, posted 02-17-2006 11:56 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 258 of 310 (287653)
02-17-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Garrett
02-17-2006 10:09 AM


Excellent suggestion by Modulous!
quote:
This may be faith based on reason, but it is still faith when absent empirical proof.
Modulous has made an excellent suggestion. Perhaps we should have a new topic to discuss what, exactly, science is, what it does, and how it works. You might be surprised, Garrett, at just how little in science is based on "emprical proof", and how much in science you should, to be consistent, doubt as much as you doubt the theory of evolution.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Garrett, posted 02-17-2006 10:09 AM Garrett has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024