bob b, Re: 'Increasing Genetic Information'
- Thread starter eisenreich
- Start date
You have to define information before I can agree or disagree with that statement. I'm asking you define it. If I asked you to define velocity and you said, "Do you agree that cars have more velocity than turtles?", then you still haven't defined velocity. I haven't moved any closer to the actual definition of velocity. Instead, you've asked me a question about the usage of a word I'm seeking to define. Your question does the exact same thing. If I ask you to define information content, you cannot ask me whether or not I agree with a usage of the word without first defining it for me.
eisenreich
New member
Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. Why are those goal-posts on wheels..?bob b said:
Bob, answer the question so we can get on with it. Define an increase in information.
eisenreich said:
Even though the term appears in evolutionist literature (also creationist) I've never seen both sides agree on a definition.
However, if we can't agree that a human genome contains more information than a bacterium genome, there is not much point in a discussion.
So I ask again, does a human genome contains more information than a bacterium genome?
I am not asking for a definition to which I agree, I am simply asking for your definition.
No one has disagreed with you. I'm waiting on your definition before I make a judgement. Your continual failure to provide a definition is downright cowardly. Step up and defend what you believe, bob. If you contend that random mutations do not add new information, then you are expected to define what new information is. Define new information.
Johnny said:
I'm doing my best to home in on it Johnny, but you should realize that nobody has ever successfully come up with a good definition. Nevertheless, some illumination may be possible if we are patient.
So I ask once again, do you think that a human genome contains more information than a a bacterium genome?
How then can you assert that new information cannot be added by random mutations if you're not even sure what new information is?
Yes, of course I do. But this is based on my understanding of information.
My understanding of what new information constitutes does not place any requirements on the origins of said information. To me, new information amounts to a new function. New information does not refer to the net total of information, rather it is a descriptor of information that had not previously existed. In other words, new information is simply functional information that was not previously present. It may or may not involve the loss of old information. For example, a population of cells has a functional set of proteins X. If it can be demonstrated that the functional set X did not include function Y, then the appearance of function Y indicates new information. New information must have a function, or its definition serves no useful purpose. This is my opinion. I'm sure if I sat down and wrote for a longer period I could come up with a more concise definition, but this is just something to work with.
The question then arises as to how to measure the summation of information in a system. I am not an information theorist by any means, so if anyone is please correct me. It would appear to me that information content can be measured by the functional outcome of said information. This functional content of a gene is not necessary related to genomic length. For example, a gene which codes for a small, simple protein with function X carries just as much information as a gene which codes for a large complex protein that performs function X. If you and I are having a text conversation about our heights, you may say, "I am 5 feet and 11 inches tall." I may convey the same message as "5-11". Your string contains more binary than mine, but they both have the same information content. Thus, genomic length is not a good indicator of information. I could go on, and I may pick this up again this weekend, but I have a renal physiology test tomorrow which is going to bury me.
Johnny said:
I would say that your definition of information is a good step in the right direction.
Also, I thank you for your reply which agrees that human genomes conain more information than those of bacteria.
So I guess we can agree that evolution from a bacterium to a human being would require an addition to the information content of genomes.
noguru
Well-known member
bob b said:
Bob is playing with figures here. He knows that when considering the mathematical analyses of change from a bacteria DNA to a human DNA, the results are minimal. But he also knows that this change when it is viewed from the phenotype is immense. He would like to use this seeming discrepancy for his political advantage. Let me also note that Bob has recognized that an increase in information on the genotype level is not necessarily equivalent to an increase in intelligence on a phenotypic level. I predict that he will dance around this issue, just like a ballerina dances around a dime.
noguru said:Bob is playing with figures here. He knows that when considering the mathematical analyses of change from a bacteria DNA to a human DNA, the results are minimal. But he also knows that this change when it is viewed from the phenotype is immense. He would like to use this seeming discrepancy for his political advantage. Let me also note that Bob has recognized that an increase in information on the genotype level is not necessarily equivalent to an increase in intelligence on a phenotypic level. I predict that he will dance around this issue, just like a ballerina dances around a dime.
I have always enjoyed dancing. :chuckle:
There is no definition of "new genomic information" which necessarily excludes the possibility of it originating by random mutation. New information does not need to come in quantitively large chunks. New information can arise by the mutation of a single base pair. While the rest of the gene has not changed, new information has been specified. Thus, bob's problem is not one of the origin of new information--there exists no applicable definition of new genomic information which excludes its random origin--his problem is one of magnitude. This is why bob instinctively points to the large gap between a bacterium and a human as an example "new information". For bob, this is insurmountable not because new information cannot be generated by mutations, but because of the magnitude of new information. Ultimately, bob will not define the term on a genomic level because the moment he does he will be met with examples of new information randomly forming.
Thus, his call for for mutations which increase information is vacuous. He knows that he is free to manipulate the definition of "new mutation" on an individual basis as long as he does not settle into a formal definition. My challenge to bob is to come up with some sort of applicable definition which is biologically meaningful and which cannot be arrived at naturally.
Thus, his call for for mutations which increase information is vacuous. He knows that he is free to manipulate the definition of "new mutation" on an individual basis as long as he does not settle into a formal definition. My challenge to bob is to come up with some sort of applicable definition which is biologically meaningful and which cannot be arrived at naturally.
Johnny said:
It is not a question of a new mutation in isolation of the context of genome information.
The information in any genome is in at least two forms (there may be more): (1) genes which code for the eventual production of proteins, and (2) DNA sequences which somehow act as a switch to turn on/off the production of the proteins.
As we have already seen in another thread functional proteins are rare, meaning that not every possible DNA sequence will result in a functional protein.
Finally, evolution hypothetically works when changes in a DNA sequence result in a different functional protein that not only works, but results in a change in the lifeform that will be selected by natural selection to be preserved more effectively than the functional protein which it replaced.
So in the context of evolution the new protein can only be considered to have added information if it contributes to improved survival potential. Otherwise the change would be considered to having lost information, or at the least kept the level of information static.
There is no evidence that random mutations would be able to accidentally "discover" alterations to a genome which would accidentally fulfill the previous criteria.
In the light of DNA and its miracles in creating adult lifeforms starting with a single cell, the concept of "random mutations plus natural selection" is betting on an essentially dead horse.
The real reason that people believe in evolution is that they have convinced themselves by looking at the fossil record that there was a slow, gradual increase in complexity, going from simple creatures at the bottom of the geological column to large animals, including humans, at the top.
Johnny said:
Such an argument, if taken to an extreme, can be impractical to the point of absurdity. For instance, any probability of less than 10^-25 is considered to be impossible (it would never occur), even though mathematically it is, strictly speaking, not "impossible".
But this is basically what people are doing when they argue that if a single isolated case could be found or if the probability were shown to not be identically zero then the argument of increased information would be nullified.
I'm just trying to clarify your argument. Of course I do not believe that the probabilities are so unlikely that it never occurs.
What's the probability of an event with probability of 10^-25 occuring after 10^25 tries?
Quite the contrary. The argument of increased information can be nullified empirically. We can show under laboratory conditions that such mutations are not so rare and isolated as to render them ineffectual. I will detial such experiments when I finish my post on the "rarity of good proteins".