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

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.

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.

Garret, there is a formal, mathematical definition of "information" already widely used. Percy has refered to it in his calculations.Since it seems you are NOT refering to that term you may NOT use it any more. Please supply a clear term for what you are referring to and a clear definition of what you are referring to so that the same kind of calculations that Percy did can be done.Let's call it "Garrett Information" -- GI. That'll keep it clear what is being discussed in this thread.Now you can take Percy's simplied, few allele example and calculate the GI of both cases. Thanks. ( see Message 13 )This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-14-2006 11:21 AM

WARNING!!
A SENTENCE WITH INDETERMINATE MEANING. We don't know what "information" is yet.If you don't define what you are talking about you are talking gibberish.Since it is clear that the genetic differences between a frog and our selves can arise from selected mutations and that the real "information" differences in the genomes can be suppled by mutations your sentence (with the only definitions we have available) is WRONG.The rest of your post is ALL off topic. Please stick to the topic -- it is after all yours. They have been discussed at one time or another in other threads. But don't take on more than you can chew on for now.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-14-2006 11:30 AM

Now you've got another term: "meaning"Calculate the meaning of the DNA of a pig and a dog please. Or pic a short streatch of DNA (as in Message 13 ) and calculate the "meaning".You have NOT YET DEFINED YOUR TERMS!! (This is a way of saying we don't know what you are talking about--- and that is a slightly polite way of saying YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. )Btw, the meaning of sentences are dredged up by applying grammer rules to limited sets of words. An almost USELESS analogy for DNA since DNA "rules" allow almost ANY "sentence" ( with a few specific markers) to be a meaningful sentence.To analogize this:
The DNA grammer rules are close to sentence writing rules that say:
Anything made up of any combination of the specified 26 letters; beginning with a Capitol and ending with a period is a meaningful sentence.To the degree that you don't understand that you will not make any progress at all on this topic.

Define CS then we'll get to random if we need to.You can, since you're so freakin' smart, define random yourself when and if we need to.It is very clear that neither Garret or you actually know what you are talking about.The claim is that mutations in the genome can not supply "more" of some quantity called CS. However, no one has been able to make clear how one could tell when one has more or less of this stuff.Vague, inappropriate analogies have been used. Their weakness has been pointed out. No precise, clear, quantifiable definition has been supplied.If you wish to delay getting to that definition (and since randomness is indeed going to be OT) you may supply a definition of randomness if you wish.Alternatively we can leave randomness out and just discuss weather ANY change by ANY any cause at all can be a change that increases CS in the genome.I know what Garret is talking about. However, you and he don't.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-14-2006 07:08 PM

Randomness has been defined.Now let's see if someone will define specified complexity. SC -- I've been typing CS

And how do I quantify this so I know if it is going up or down?ABE
And you've confused things by deleteing you definition of randomness.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-14-2006 07:30 PM

SC is much more than a shorthand for specific segments of DNA.
The claim is that SC can not be increased by the mechanisms postulated by the evolutionary explanation.Every time an example of a pair of DNA sequences is examined it seems possible to get from one to the other by those mechanisms. Since some are claiming that there is some quantity that can NOT increase we'd like to know what that is.If SC is simply a shorthard for specific segments of DNA then we can show mechanisms which CAN take one segment of DNA and make it into another one. The second one can be longer, shorter, more varied, less varied, more random, less random, produce more proteins, produce less proteins. If SC is simply this shorthand then there doesn't seem to be anything which can't increase.Since Garret et all are claiming that there IS something which can't increase they need to make it clear what that is.Crash has had a go at supplying a reference to a more precise definition. It's not all we need but it is at least heading there. Turns out to be complex doesn't it? What the IDers are trying to get to is some idea that a "specific" sequence of DNA is very unlikely. Therefore random processes can't "find" it in DNA space.They overstate this by saying you can't get from "simple" to "complex" by evolutionary mechanisms. Clearly, evolutionary processes don't allow for getting from any arbitrary DNA sequence to any other arbitrary sequence. This is because ALL intermediate steps have to be viable.The reasoning used is riddled with holes.E.g.,
While any specific sequence is, if arbitrarily chosen, not very likely there are a number (unknown) of sequences which work so there is much less specificity than claimed. You and I are, for example, two specific DNA sequences, they are different but both are viable.Another hole is pointed out by Crash's note. Life is clustered very close together. The steps from one to another aren't very large. You can't get any arbitrary DNA sequence to any other but the sequences are strongely suggestive of resulting from a process that isn't getting to arbitrary DNA sequences but is rather constrained. It is, of course, constrained by what it has to start with and the demand that each step be a viable organism.It is a common problem when IDers or creationists attempt to "do science" that they work with nearly zero knowledge of the subject, the evidence and what has gone before. They also tend not to correct their misapprehensions very quickly on the occasions when they do.A good example of this is the darned fool thermodynamics issue. Several major creationist sites have in fact suggested that this is not a useful point to bring up. This is in their favour (that they did so decades and decades after the information was available to make it clear that it wasn't meaningful isn't so much in their favor). However, some lesser lights of the movement are still bringing it up.

That is too focussed on external, very random events.There are copying mistakes in the replication process too. These do NOT, it seems, occur everywhere with equal likely hood. This allows some to become confused as to how "random" they are. Some parts of the chemistry are more subject to errors than others.I think there are also differences in how likely and error will be corrected. The chemistry causes this too.

There seems to be something interesting there but I don't get it. If I role one die, I know the range of outcomes for sure but it ain't gonna be 99 or zero.If I role the die 1000 times the pattern is very random and not predicatable but I can make money betting on very narrow ranges of the average value of the 1000 roles or on pretty narrow ranges for the occurances of 1, 2, 3 ...6. The chemistry may constrain what outcomes are possible but if and when one of the allowable ones will come up may be random still; just like the dice above. This is a bit more interesting but I think only means that the supplied definition of "random" needs to be clarified.As noted above we can make very accurate predictions of certain sorts about the role of dice (hands in cards, etc.). Do you think that makes these "non-random" in some way?

No, not at all. It seems to mean that if there is ANY constraint on the outcomes then the process is non-random. You can define it that way if you want but then there is no random processes at all so the term becomes useless. I think I mostly agree with you here as (other than the misuse of the term random imbedded in there). However, I think that neither the individual mutations or the general pattern are random by your definition. Some individual mutations are (I'm guessing) very unlikely and some are (I'm guessing) much, much more likely (the dice analogy would be a dishonest die). I think that is true to the degree that many mutations are caused by "randomness" like the die roll in the replication process. However, not all mutations are caused by the chemistry of the objects involed.But I'll go back to agreeing. There is at least a chance that the patterns that come out are constrained in any number of ways and that we will be able to, statistically at least, make some predictions about them.However, we now need a word to describe this and the roll of the dice scenario that separates them from much more intuitively NOT "random" events. When I push on a domino and it falls over that is NOT random. When the grandfather clock strikes is NOT random.I also need some examples of what is "really" random then. We can make very strong, accurate and precise statistical statments about quantum mechanical processes are these, then, not random?

This is a strong statement of Gould's. I think it is becoming apparent that on the grand scale he was wrong. Even on rather detailed scales there is reason to think it is wrong.The claim is, however, not unfounded. It is not very strongly supported though. It is made without adequate knowledge of the details and an experimental sample of just one history. It is supported by reasoning from the degrees of freedom that life has open to it. The amount of "contingency" (a fav word of Gould's) involved. This is enough to suggest that an exact replay isn't very tenable as an idea. While we can make accurate predictions about the nature of our 1,000 dice rolls and the next 1,000 will be similar we can be dammed sure that the two patterns of numbers will not be the same.Howver, that is probably enough for the topic at hand. We've established some idea of what the "random" in the topic title might mean. That is: there are constrained not perfectly predictable changes that can occur in the genome.The evidence suggesting that it is at least partially wrong is the reoccurance of many patterns in living organisms. But would this be true if we rewond history and started way back? Some say yes, some say no. We need more samples.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-15-2006 12:08 AM

The first part of your post i've already agreed with in noting that there are differences of opinions on it. The differences are not, in my opinion, black and white however.You then try another rant (and you were doing pretty well for a bit there) based, again, on your lack of knowledge. The only logical conclusion is that we don't know if we go back to the most original origin (the determination of the laws of nature). That is NOT an "evolutionary" model. The evolutionary model we are talking about is the possibility of the existing DNA and processes to cause and increase in SC.Once those intial conditions are in place (however they got there) there is enough room for unpredictability to allow imperfect replicators to explore a constrained space of possible genomes. I think we can now return to the main theme of the thread.

It sure is. I think I made that clear.Evolutionary theory will manage to run fine with your definition of "random" mutations too. Since I think you're very close to what the actual case has been understood to be for a long time. It has certainly be made clear to me in the limited reading I've done.You're argument seems to be only with the idea of random as being utterly accidental. By saying something that is constained as to outcome and statistically predictable you haven't made any progress. The actual outcome can still be one of a reasonably large number. It may be in fact an utterly collosal number out of a number collosally more collosal. It is enormously constrained with a tiny chance of occuring but it is but one of a huge number of things which could have occured.Let's agree that nothing is random but that somethings are not, in detail, predictable and have you tell us what that has to do with the prohibition of SC increasing. It is time to return to the topic instead of you trying to rewrite the definition of well understood terms.