Evolving New Information

This is a continuation of a digression that arose in the A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence thread concerning how mutation produces new information. What follows is just a copy of my Message 324.--Percy

---

Whether any gene is expressed is a function of many things, the one we're most familiar with being the dominant/recessive characteristic. In sexual species a mutation does not need to be present in both parents in order to be expressed in the offspring, and so it is possible for a mutation to express itself in the first generation of its appearance. And of course in non-sexual species this isn't an issue. Actually, it wasn't an analogy, I didn't specify the type of reproduction, and it was an example of a single mutation, not allele mixing such as would occur with sexual reproduction. If it helps, it is simplest to think of the example organism as a sighted asexual species with eye color.You weren't specific about what portions of my example you took issue with, so help me figure this out. Our organism has three alleles for eye color:

• GGAACG (green eyes)
• GGAACA (blue eyes)
• GGCACG (yellow eyes)

Since there are three messages in the message set for this gene, the amount of information it can communicate is log₂3 = 1.585 bits. This is just straightforward information theory, I'm just setting the table right now, there shouldn't be anything here to take issue with. I think this is what you prefer to call complex specified information, and I'll attempt to accommodate you.Now we look at a single reproductive event where an organism with the allele for yellow eyes (CGCACG) produces an offspring with a mutation in this gene so that it is now CGCACA, and the offspring has brown eyes. Our message set has now become:

• GGAACG (green eyes)
• GGAACA (blue eyes)
• GGCACG (yellow eyes)
• GGCACA (brown eyes)

There are now four messages in the message set for this gene, and the amount of information it can communicate is log₂4 = 2 bits, an increase of .415 bits.You had several objections to this. One is that the mutation for brown eyes is polymorphic, and I have to completely agree. Having multiple alleles for a gene is the very definition of polymorphism, and increasing the number of alleles is, at heart, the way that mutation increases the amount of information in a genome. You later say: So you're asking us to describe the type of new information that is required by evolution to rpovide new functions, and my mutation example is exactly that. Mutations are ultimately how evolution provides new function, and I provided an example of a mutation providing a new function, and showed how from an information theoretic perspective that it represented new information. If you think it doesn't provide new information then you have to explain how the message set growing from 3 messages via mutation to become 4 is not an increase in information. log₂4 - log₂3 = +.415 is the simple math that you have to address.Another of your objections dealt with complex specified information: My example began with an organism with an eye-color gene with three alleles, and you call this complex specified information (you actually used the term "ordered complexity", but hopefully this is a synonym). I then said there was a mutation that added an allele, and you're saying that the added allele is not complex specified information.But what if I had instead begun my example by saying that the organism originally had four alleles for eye color like this:

• GGAACG (green eyes)
• GGAACA (blue eyes)
• GGCACG (yellow eyes)
• GGCACA (brown eyes)

You would have said this is the complex specified information for that gene and had no problem with it, just as you did when I began my example with a three-allele gene. So if the allele for brown eyes is complex specified information when it is part of the original genome, how is it not complex specified information when it arises through mutation?--PercyEdited by Percy, : "complex specified complexity" => "complex specified information"

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I looked up the transcripts from the Dover trial as I had a feeling this issue was addressed there.I found a reference to this paper which gives an overview of the origination of new genetic information:http://www3.uta.edu/faculty/betran/pdfs/naturereviews.pdfHere's the abstract.Nanogecko - read this and see what you think.Rich

Thanks much for this, I've started reading the paper but will probably have to finish later because I have to leave soon.But I wanted to note for NanoGecko that the paper appears to be about the origin of new genes. This is very much on-topic, but just so there's no confusion I want to make clear that my example addressed the simpler case of the origin of a new allele.--Percy

Nit-picking, I'm afraid, but dominant/recessive is usually down to the intereaction of the proteins (often enzymes) produced by the two alleles not the differential expression of them.

While Percy's definition of information as the number of bits necessary to represent the message in correct, his example of "genes" is misleading. In principle, any mutation that produces a sequence of bases that did not previously exist in a genome is an increase in information since the number of bits necessary to represent the genome has increased. Thus, if the original three sequences of 6 bases (2 codons) mutated as specified, there would be produced an additional sequence of 6 bases (2 codons) that did not exist before. Simple. It becomes obvious when you consider that to represent the bases at these 6 loci has required the writing of an additional line of information to represent the possibilities.However (and I'm sure that Percy understands this), genes are actually composed of thousands of bases that make up thousands of codons that encode sequences that represent polymers that are thousands of amino acids long. I know that the point may seem obvious, unless you are unfamiliar with the topic. It's not all that important, I just thought it should be pointed out."Increase of genetic information" is just another way of saying genetic diversity. Any increase of genetic diversity is therefore, by definition, an increase in information. The specific example that Percy gave is an example of an increase in the molecular diversity of a hypothetical genome. While the example is a case of the addition of a new molecular allele, it is not a new genetic allele. You see, GGx (x being any of cytosine, adenine, guanine or uracil/thymine) always encodes the amino acid glycine, and ACx always encodes the amino acid Threonine. In other words, all 4 molecular alleles produce exactly the same sequence of amino acids in the resultant protein, and thus represent the same genetic allele. A mutation in the second G in the codon GGA would encode a different amino acid (GAA = glutamic acid, GCA = Alanine, GUA = Valine). The same principle is true for the other specified codons (GGC, ACG, ACA)I may be picking nits here, but to someone who is unfamiliar with genetics or molecular biology then the example may be misleading. You can find the genetic code lots of places on the web, even Wikipedia.Percy is also correct that the paper is about the origin of new genes, not the origin of new alleles.Also, Mr. Jack is also quite correct. It is the interaction of the proteins involved that produce variations in dominance. Hypothetically, a single point mutation could cause a change that is dominant and shows up in the phenotype - which is, I think, Percy's point.In the other thread the demand was made for one example of where natural selection added information. Percy correctly responded that it doesn't. In fact, quite the contrary is true. There are several mechanisms of evolution, some of which add genetic diversity (information in the genome) and some which remove it. Percy pointed out that natural selection (sexual selection and artificial selection as well) remove diversity. The same is true of genetic drift, biased variation, and non-random mating, other mechanisms of evolution. On the other hand, mutation, geneflow, moveable elements, and recombination add diversity.Edited by pandion, : To add comment

Well, maybe, but they're good points none the less. I just put down random codons without regard to whether they coded for the same amino acid or not. If it becomes necessary I'll improve the example for NanoGecko.--Percy

It also occurs to me that the first quote from NanoGecko is actually wrong. As pointed out later, it depends on the proteins produced. However, in one of the most famous and documented cases of evolution by natural selection, the mutation was immediately apparent. The first notice of a dark morph in the Peppered moth (Biston betularia) was in 1848. Until then all observed moths had been of the light-speckled variety. From then until 1895 the percentage of dark morphs increased until it had reached 95% in polluted areas. As pollution was reduced during the last half of the 20th century, the number of dark morphs also declined.My point here is that the dark morph (called carbonaria) was caused by a single point mutation. The mutation and the gene has been identified. The mutated gene is dominant. Thus, heterozygous moths are dark.

Should we regard that as evidence that humans descended from ape like animals over millions of years?

Hi, Jaywill.Good to see you(r words) again. You should regard it as evidence that humans could have evolved from ape-like animals, because all necessary steps have been shown to be possible.You are correct that it is not direct evidence that this did happen: but, that isn't the point of this thread. Percy wants to discuss how new genetic "information" can arise through mutation.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Why on earth would you even ask such a question? Why do you feel that moths should be involved in the evolution of humans? All living organisms are the result of evolution. They are all descended from previous organisms that were different.I can present some evidence that humans share a common ancestor with the other apes. Would you like to learn about it?Edited by pandion, : To correct phrasing.Edited by pandion, : No reason given.

The content is a new topic hereEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Hid content and added banner.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add link to new topic.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hid content, added banner.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I believe that evolutionary biologist L. Harrison Matthews wrote that the peppered moth case was simple natural selection, but not evolution in action. Am I missing something here ? *L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction," to Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi

By the way, has anyone here read John Sanford's book ''genetic entropy ...'' ?