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

You just don't know what you are talking about. You are attempting to use a layman's definition in a scientific discussion. Like I said, I'm no biologist but even I know that what DNA ACTUALLY does is code for protiens.http://www.so.wustl.edu/...um/genetics/pdfs/ModGen_1D_SP.pdf Macro and Micro evolution are the same things. They are simply HUMAN CONSTRUCTED TERMS to describe different degrees of the same process. It's certainly not a topic for this thread, but speciation has been observed. PERIOD. Until you understand the different between the process and the human constructed terms to describe said process you simply are not qualified to speak on the subject. That makes no sense whatsoever. What is the translator? What is specified complexity? DNA codes proteins. This coding is transported by RNA if I remember correctly.I can only imagine how ridiculous all this sounds to a real biologist.Here's another way to think about it.... Do you know anything about computer programming? If so this may make sense.DNA is like assembly language. It's written in the natural language of the processor. You could write any program using only assembly language (it would just take a LONG TIME).

Rand, would you accept this defintion?A random number generator would be able to generate numbers (whole, rational, real, doesn't matter... just needs to be numbers of an infinite set) that had no relation whatsoever to the initial conditions of the generator. Of course it seems this would be impossible to build. It's certainly possible to build finite random number generators (dice are a great example)... but generators that operate on infinite sets of numbers are a whole other story.Imagine a infinite sided DIE with a side for every natural number

This is new information from the perspective of information in terms of design features although I am not sure it satisfies what garret is looking for.one observation and one questionIt's clear that in the evo models, natural selection is guided by pressure from the environment (and the local environment also guides the mutations we are learning. We also know the environment is formed from the actual physical make-up of the universe. In order to assert mutations are really random, you have to assert that the formation of the universe is random, and I think that's logically off the reservation. The universe itself exhibits rules, laws, order, etc,....what causes inanimate energy to order itself?In biology, we say the organism's programming to survive (which to my mind is evidence of ID all on it's own), but what created the rules of matter and energy to be ordered by, and matter and energy itself?I think the logical inference is an Intelligent Cause did, and so regardless of the mechanisms, whether evolution or direct creation, imo, it is all Intelligent Design because even in the evo model, the underlying guiding factor for life evolving are the physical (including QM), chemical, and environmental factors in place, and these things do not demonstrably have an origin in randmonness.In other words, the random aspect is a massive assumption on the part of evos without any evidence or logic whatsoever. If, and this is a big if, life forms only through "naturalistic means", then that is still evidence of design because the design of the universe itself in it's origins dictates what designs can flow out of it.And that still ignores the fact that so-called naturalistic means only hypothesis of evos is unproven and unlikely.

So, you don't accept randomness. Why not just come out and say that? How about pseudorandomness, like the random numbers generated by a computer? Can you accept that?Would it satisfy you if we said that mutations were pseudorandom? Except that we detect that mutations are randomly distributed. Pseudorandomly, at least. (Pseudorandom numbers, for instance, would be strings of numbers that are deterministically generated but statistically indeterminable from a truly random sequence. By definition there's no way to distinguish a random sequence from a pseudorandom one after the fact.)

Randman, I think you actually bring up a good point here. Is mutation truly random? Well that depends on what definition of random you are using.Scenario 1 = If a grand unifying Theory of physics exists and one could know the exact starting conditions in any scenario then nothing is truly random.Scenario 2 = Either there is no grand unifying theory or it is impossible to ever know the exact starting conditions in any scenario.Now, Son Goku or Cavediver may jump in here and shoot down my scenarios, but they seem to make sense to me. (they make us engineers concentrate on how to use these theories to design transistors, not why they exist!).What is a good definition of random mutation? Here are some possibilities:1. Mutations that the organism has no control over2. Mutations that can no be predicted using any current methodologies.I think we call the mutations random because we have no way to predict what they will be. I can expose organisms to radiation, but I have no way to predict what mutations might occur (I only know that if I expose a mild-mannered scientist to gamma radiation he will turn into a large angry green hulk.... hehehehehehe)I think the whole concept of randomness might warrant an entire new thread.

I suggest we use crashfrog's definition of a random distribution. i.e. A distribution of items (numbers, values, whatever) that is mathematically indistinguishable from a truly random distribution. So whether it is truly random or not is irrelevant from our perspective.Nice job Crash... that's exactly what I was trying to say!

Can you define what "random" means? It's a basic concept within evolutionary theory, and yet it's not often evos can define it.

I didn't bring up God, Garrett did. Since your initial premise is incorrect, your conclusions are also incorrect.If you have further complaints about my conduct in this thread, please bring them to the [forum=-19] forum.--Percy

Sure. Random by itself is hard to define because you have things like random sequences, or random events. In the case of mutation which is a random event a good definition would be an event that does not have a well defined generator. In the case of a random sequence I would say it is a sequence for which there can be no closed form for defining the sequence.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I think this is another example of extra content, less meaning.The information has been altered so that a different protein is created as a result. Although this has a beneficial effect, it is actually detrimental to the overall system function as a whole.In terms of the sickle-cell scenario (GUA), the actual trigger that prevents malaria is the fact that the mutation causes the hemoglobin to form in the wrong shape and fail to carry oxygen. This lack of oxygen carrying efficiency is what causes many with the mutation to contract fatal anemia. The same oxygen deficiency, however, also resists Plasmodium. So it's a case of a breakdown of the system being beneficial in some regards. Following down this path would actually lead to more problems than benefits in the long run. I'm not as familiar with the AAA scenario, but suspect it's working right along the same lines.Since the oxygen isn't able to act in it's normal capacity I would say the specified complexity has actually reduced in this case. Meaning, the biological entity in question has fewer functional process than before the "beneficial" mutation.

I think a good question to ask would be "are mutations generally benefical/detrimental/neutral". Of course one would then have to define what makes a mutation good or bad... but if it can be shown that beneficial mutations are statistically no more likely or even less likely than neutral or detrimental mutations then mutation is sufficiently random for the purposes of evolution.I guess another question would be, "Is there any evidence that environmental factors influence the type of mutation". For example, if I live somewhere with no ozone layer are mutations that help protect me from ultraviolet rays more likely to occur (I know they are more likely to be SELECTED upon, but are they more likely to occur in the first place?). I'm pretty sure experments have shown this is not the case. But I would welcome the input of someone more knowledgable on the subject.

Please I am not trying to berate you. I am trying to be as straight forward as I can.Your response is insufficent although I can respond in a way that makes it clearer what is needed.You need a definition for whatever you want to call it (specified complexity, information, meaning, etc) such that you can then derive a metric from it.You cannot say that one thing has more or less information unless you have a metric for calculating how much information the subject has.This is important because right now this sentence: has no value without a metic and there is no way for you to show that this is true. With a metric you could then calculate the specified complexity of that phrase you used as an example. Then you could add the word 'lazy' like you did and independently check your metric. Then if the value you get out of your metric is the same you could say that there was no increase by the duplication.Without that though all you are doing is basically typing gibberish using big words like 'specified complexity'.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

What do you guys think of this?Source: Statisticool.comThe math makes sense to me.... So we can at least say it's "mathematically random".Keep in mind that as crash alluded to earlier... mathematically random and truly random are slightly different concepts I think

I think adaptive mutations are considered by some as evidence they are more likely to occur in the first place, or that this can occur. One paper WK linked to proposed that quantum mechanics governed mutations and dealt with a possible information exchange, I believe, to cause adaptive mutations.

There is no evidence your statement is correct. We are accumulating data that shows that a supernatural force is not required to have
primative life formed from organic chemicals in the proper environment.