bob b, Re: 'Increasing Genetic Information'

eisenreich

New member
Just wanted to get your take on this post from another page, particularly the bolded questions . Also, if you have some free time, could you respond to my posts here and here on the "Evolution vs. intelligent design: The debate continues" thread? Thanks-


My standard respose to the “genetic information can’t increase” complaint from creationists:

According to the creationists, all humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off a Really Big Boat. Anyone who understands junior high genetics will know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus (in reality, the 8 people on the Big Boat would have had even FEWER, since some of them were descended from others and thus shared alleles, but for the sake of argument we will give the creationists every possible benefit of the doubt and assume that they were ALL heterozygous and shared no alleles at all in common). That means, if the creationists are correct that “most mutations are deleterious” and that “no new genetic information can appear through mutation”, there can not be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the MAXIMUM that could have gotten off the Big Boat.

But wait ————— today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm. Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time they got off the Big Boat until now. That raises a few questions ——-
(1) if genetic mutations always produce a LOSS in information, like the creationists keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (perhaps in creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16).
(2) if these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here.

But wait — there’s more:

Not only, according to creationists, must these new alleles have appeared after the Big Boat, but, according to their, uh, “theory”, all of these mutations must have appeared in the space of just *4,000 years* — the period of time since the Big Flood. That gives a rate of BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS, which add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, of one every 10 years, or roughly two every generation ———- a much higher rate of beneficial mutation than has ever been recorded anywhere in nature. Nowhere today do we see such a rate anywhere near so high. So not only would I like to know
(1) what produced this extraordinarily high rate of non-deleterious mutations, but
(2) what stopped it (indeed, what stopped it conveniently right before the very time when we first developed the technological means to study it).

But wait —- we’re not done YET ……

Since less than 1% of observed mutations are beneficial (the vast majority of mutations are indeed deleterious or neutral and have no effect), that means for every beneficial mutation which added a new allele, there should have been roughly 99 others which did not. So to give us roughly 400 beneficial mutations would require somewhere around 40,000 total mutations, a rate of approximately 100 mutations in each locus EVERY YEAR, or 2,000 mutations per locus for EACH GENERATION. Do you know what we call people who experience mutation rates that high? We call them “cancer victims”. The only people with mutation rates even remotely comparable were victims of Chernobyl.

But wait, we’re STILL not finished ……

In order for any of those mutations to be passed on to the next generation to produce new alleles, they MUST occur in the germ cells - - sperm or egg. And since any such high rate of mutation in a somatic cell (non-sperm or egg) would have quickly produced a fatal case of cancer, if the creationists are right this mutation rate could ONLY have occurred in the germ cells and could NOT have occurred in any of the somatic cells.

If one of our resident creationists can propose a mechanism for me which produces a hugely high rate of mutation in the germ cells while excluding it from any other cells, a Nobel Prize in medicine surely awaits —- such information would be critically valuable to cancer researchers. But alas, no such mechanism exists. The rate of mutations made necessary by creationist “arguments” would certainly have killed all of Noah’s children before they even had time to have any kids of their own. In order to produce 400 beneficial alleles in just 4,000 years, humanity would have been beset with cancers at a rate that would have wiped them all out millenia ago.
 

eisenreich

New member
Yorzhik said:
This is a good one. I'll have to look into this.
Thanks for your interest. Please disregard any blatent ad hominems, the author appears to have been through this many times; they certainly do not detract from his astute and concise observations on the topic.
 

Johnny

New member
The problem with this argument is that the author makes the assumption that the alleles are all advantageous or have gained new information but he doesn't present the reasoning, data, studies, or method used to determine that they were beneficial.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Johnny said:
The problem with this argument is that the author makes the assumption that the alleles are all advantageous or have gained new information but he doesn't present the reasoning, data, studies, or method used to determine that they were beneficial.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

There is of course another possibility: there is a built-in mechanism for generating new alleles. This would not be an increase of information, but would be an increase of variety.

IMHO science has only begun to scratch the surface of the mysteries of life. New and "unexpected" results and mechanisms are surfacing faster than the textbooks can assimilate them.
 

noguru

Well-known member
bob b said:
There is of course another possibility: there is a built-in mechanism for generating new alleles. This would not be an increase of information, but would be an increase of variety.

So increased variety is not a type of increased information? :think:
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
noguru said:
So increased variety is not a type of increased information? :think:

It is in one sense, but is not in another.

When a couple have children there is increased variety in the population and in the first sense an increase in information, but that does not mean that in the second sense that each individual family member is "evolving" to a higher level of intelligence.
 

eisenreich

New member
Johnny said:
The problem with this argument is that the author makes the assumption that the alleles are all advantageous or have gained new information but he doesn't present the reasoning, data, studies, or method used to determine that they were beneficial.
I didn't think that he was suggesting that all of the alleles were advantageous, merely that a certain number (higher than 16) had been observed. Going from his example of the HLA complex, this page lists a great number of alleles for HLA (GeneExpression). If creationists claim that "mutations can never add genetic information," how can they explain the quantity and diversity of alleles within the HLA complex? Is this what bob was hinting at with his "increase of variety, not increase of information" comment?
 

Johnny

New member
I didn't think that he was suggesting that all of the alleles were advantageous, merely that a certain number (higher than 16) had been observed.
The latter half of the post is based on the assumption that those were beneficial mutations, of which he provided no supporting evidence. I don't agree with his argument for two reasons. The first, as I have stated, is that he builds his argument on what I see as an unfounded assumption. Secondly, an increase in genetic content isn't necessarily an increase in information. A random string of 50 letters bears less information, to me as the reader, than a simple four digit code representing your birthday. What creationists will argue is that mutations can only go "downhill" from higher functioning to lesser functioning. In other words allele A is the original copy. 100 years later, two variant alleles appear. The variants have mutations, but these result in impaired functioning of the original function. Thus, alleles aren't necessarily indicators of increased information content, nor are they necessarily beneficial. I sound like a creationist. I'm just pointing out why I don't think this is an effective argument.

If creationists claim that "mutations can never add genetic information," how can they explain the quantity and diversity of alleles within the HLA complex?
It depends on how they quantify the information content of DNA I guess.
 

noguru

Well-known member
bob b said:
It is in one sense, but is not in another.

When a couple have children there is increased variety in the population and in the first sense an increase in information, but that does not mean that in the second sense that each individual family member is "evolving" to a higher level of intelligence.

Now you have changed an increase of information to evolving a higher level of intelligence. Added information through added variation does not have to mean a higher level of intelligence. In fact I would assume that if a population moved towards higher intelligence that there would be a decrease of something else (say physical strength or number of offspring at birth).

However if this level of intelligence never existed before, it would still be an increase in the overall level of information for that species' genome, or for life in general.

I think what you are talking about is the size of the container for genetic information. The size of each comtainer remains the same, but the number and amount of information in the sum total of all these containers can and often does increase.
 
Last edited:

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
noguru said:
Now you have changed an increase of information to evolving a higher level of intelligence. Added information through added variation does have to mean a higher level of intelligence.

You are confused. :kookoo:
 

noguru

Well-known member
bob b said:
You are confused. :kookoo:

Well one of us is confused. If you believe it is me, could you explain why it is I that is confused? Or was this just empty rhetoric? :help:
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
noguru said:
Well one of us is confused. If you believe it is me, could you explain why it is I that is confused? Or was this just empty rhetoric? :help:

I thought I had explained the source of confusion with my example of the couple having children, but I surmise that this didn't help. What else can I say?
 

Jukia

New member
bob b said:
I thought I had explained the source of confusion with my example of the couple having children, but I surmise that this didn't help. What else can I say?

bob b, you made a direct connection between "evolving" and "higher intelligence". Seems to me to be a part of your argument that evolution does not go "uphill". This despite the fact that aharvey, stratnerd and others with a better understanding of evolutionary theory than either of us (you, know, professional biologists) have explained to you many, many times that "uphill", "downhill" are not in the vocabulary of evolution. Take your pick, either your obstinancy, density, closed minededness or intellectual dishonesty are at play here.
 

noguru

Well-known member
bob b said:
I thought I had explained the source of confusion with my example of the couple having children, but I surmise that this didn't help. What else can I say?

Yes, and I was trying to point out that your example was a confused one. As Jukia pointed out, you made a direct connection between increased information and higher intelligence. I tried to seperate these ideas out for you to alleviate any confusion, but I am now convinced that it didn't help. What else can I say? :doh:
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
noguru said:
Yes, and I was trying to point out that your example was a confused one. As Jukia pointed out, you made a direct connection between increased information and higher intelligence. I tried to seperate these ideas out for you to alleviate any confusion, but I am now convinced that it didn't help. What else can I say? :doh:

Probably nothing more than what you have already said. Same for me.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There is no scientific support for the idea that random mutations can increase the information content of a genome.

The argument that multiple alleles is an increase of information in a genome is without merit.
 

eisenreich

New member
bob b said:
There is no scientific support for the idea that random mutations can increase the information content of a genome.

The argument that multiple alleles is an increase of information in a genome is without merit.

"It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."​

I love the underlined part, that sounds strangely familiar... :think:

noguru said:
So increased variety is not a type of increased information?
bob b said:
It is in one sense, but is not in another.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Eisenreich,

I have already explained that an increase in alleles is in one sense an increase in information, but that in an evolutionary sense is not (necessarily), because it does not show that in any particular line of descent that the information in any specific genome has increased.

If you have any specific case where any random mutation has been documented as having increased the amount of specified information in a genome please do not hesitate to bring it to our attention.
 
Top