Adding information to the genome.

It has been estimated that the size of the functional genome has increased 7.8 fold every billion years. Whether that figure is right or wrong, molecule-to-man evolution certainly requires a steady and substantial nett increase in genomic information.The occasional point mutation can be "seen" by natural selection, but these generally switch an existing gene on or off, so they don't constitute additional information. So what is the absolute minimum novel genetic structure required to be "seen" by natural selection and added as new information to the genome?Is it a protein? An enzyme? A gene? What must be created by random processes in order to be seen and conserved by selection?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Thread copied here from the Adding information to the genome. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.Edited by Admin, : Fix thread name.

This seems like a totally baseless assertion. Most point mutations are neutral, but even those that aren't are rarely null mutations. If you mean that they affect the pattern of gene expression rather than actually rendering the gene inoperable then you are using a concept of information which totally decouples it from the processes which actually produce functional biological variation.You seem to be saying that there are mutations which can cause phenotypic variation which can be acted upon by natural selection but which do not constitute changes in information. This makes whatever measure of information you are using essentially irrelevant to the concept of evolution. Heritable variation with a phenotypic effect causing a difference in reproductive success, at whatever level that variation is generated. Of course this need not only apply to conserved features since this description equally well encompasses deleterious mutations.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

First you must define information. Really for your argument to mean anything at all you must do this; otherwise you're just playing humpty-dumpty. For the recognised definitions of Information used in Infromation Theory, it is relatively trivial to show mutations can increase information. So what do you mean? Be specific. That's nice. What about the ones that aren't "generally"? Like the mutation that produced chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium (the malaria parasite). I don't understand what you mean here? Could you elaborate?Edited by Mr Jack, : Tag error

Which do not constitute a nett increase in information. I think I made that clear. That's right. But in order for the nett information to increase (as opposed to merely "change")that variation has to be additional to all the other information on the genome. Modifying the function of existing information might give you the effect, but there's no nett increase in information. Precisely my question. What is the minimum level of new information -not modified existing information- that can cause a phenotypic effect visible to natural selection? A new protein? A new enzyme? A new gene?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

DNA that has, or contributes to, an effect on phenotypic form or function. Are you suggesting that it is this form of mutation that has caused the functional, non-redundant genome to grow 7.8 fold every billion years? The supposedly observed increase in the size of the genome requires the addition of new information. That new information must be created from non-functional DNA (otherwise it is simply modifying existing information). What is the minimal genetic structure that can be randomly assembled from non-functioning DNA that will be visible to natural selection?Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

You do realize that this "no new information" is a talking point derived from a fundamentalist religious belief in "the fall" don't you? They believe that from perfect creation there is nowhere to go but down.Unfortunately, this belief in "the fall" is not supported by science, nor is the absolute mandate that there can be no new information in the genome.Those unsupported religious beliefs would perhaps be more appropriate for one of the Religion Forums rather than the Science Forum.

---

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

From where it is derived is irrelevant. It should be easy to falsify with scientific data. Again, if you have the scientific data to support this, the debate is over. Let's see it. Were they unsupported, you would undoubtedly be right.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Then the debate is over. Scientists have only to convince other scientists, relying on empirical evidence. That has long since been done.We don't need to convince creationists who don't rely on empirical evidence in the first place. No amount of empirical evidence will be enough.Creationists rely, instead, on scripture and "divine" revelation. No amount of scientific evidence will convince a committed creationist of anything outside of scripture and revelation. But that doesn't make it correct. Nor does that detract from what science has learned over the years. (The number of religious beliefs that have been disproved is large, and still growing. Think: global flood, young earth, lightning and other natural disasters caused by angry gods, demons responsible for disease, etc. The list is long but laughable.)And that's why there are some 38,000 Christian denominations or sects--they don't rely upon empirical evidence to ascertain which, if any, of their beliefs are accurate. When two interpretations or beliefs collide--whamo-splat! You have schism! Another sect or denomination added to the list.

---

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

Who cares? It is irrelevant, the genome does not give a rat's ass how "complex" it is. Mutations that reduce complexity and increase survivability are going to be preserved through natural selection just as much as those that increase complexity and increase survivability."Complexity" can be preserved through natural selection for completely different reasons. For instance, suppose there is a mutation that causes a long string of random, non-functional DNA to be inserted harmlessly into the genome. This mutation happens to take place in an organism that has a completely different mutation that is simply a modification of existing DNA (no change in "complexity"), but which makes the organism much more likely to survive and reproduce. Behold, natural selection is preserving a lot of completely non-functional DNA, yet increasing "complexity" by your measurement.That example could have a later organism that deletes the useless DNA, and also has another different survival advantage modification. That would be a decrease in "complexity" and yet natural selection still preserves it.The question is pointless, nearly meaningless, and completely irrelevant to the issue.

So, you're saying that a section of DNA contains information if and only if it has an effect on phenotypic form or function. Okay. How is that to be quantified? Do we simply count genes that have "an effect"? Or is there a more subtle measure here? One, that would, for example, take notice of a change to DNA that improves or changes it's function? With other forms of mutational events, yes, it accounts for all increase in gene function, however meaningfully measured According to you, if a gene is copied, and the one of those copies mutates adopting a new function is that an increase in information?

The liar.Genetic entropy.

Empirical evidence! I can't wait- let's see it.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

No-one's disputing this. I made my definition of complexity quite clear. An addition of non-functioning DNA is not an increase in complexity. The DNA needs to be functional to the point that it is "seen" by natural selection, and -most importantly- additional to all the original functioning DNA. The question is the issue. I started this thread, remember?

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Improving or changing it's function may get a gene "seen" by natural selection, but it isn't going to get you the many-fold increase in coding DNA. It's the "other forms of mutational events" I'm interested in, given that point mutations are not going to generate huge increases in the amount of functional DNA. Yes.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin