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

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.I think when it is someones first attempt we can allow less precision. There is at least a valiant attempt to give a definition.Before you say "thanks" Garret you might want to wait for what happens when this is thrown into the lion's Den with out even a whip.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-13-2006 03:03 PM

This thread is about to be given a short term closure until all participants understand what the topic is.Randman specific:
Unless you are willing to define "information", "meaning" or GI in this thread do not post. Anything else you contribute is almost certain to be off topic and will get you suspended.

Yes. NN and AN share the same fingers to type.It is generally taken as bad form to admin and participate in the same thread.I'm chosing too. Please take any specfic objection (this applies to anyone) to the thread for that purpose.

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

Chiroptera the topic is reasonably narrowly defined. Stick to it!

Totally OFF TOPIC!

The main theme of responses to you is that whatever you've posted or referenced no one knows how to use if to calculate an amount of "specfied complexity". Since NO ONE can calculate that we can't say if mutations can cause in increase in it or not.Without the ability to do the calculation the entire thread is meaningless.Since you think it can be done all you have to do is take as easy, most to the point example you want and do the calculation. That will then allow the thread to move forward again.If this doesn't happen soon the thread will be closed while everyone reviews what the topic is and figures out how to stick to it.Since "random" does appear in the title that will have to be answered eventually. Let's leave it for now and come back to it.Pretend, just for now, that it says:
"Can mutations (caused by any means at all) cause an increase in information in the genome?"Then we can come back to the "cause".ABE:
BTW if you are very careful at this it should be possible to demonstrate (but I'm not sure I could do it well) that the answer is NO.However, if you get there you will find you still haven't done any damage to the credibility of the evolutionary explanation but you will have learned something.(btw the sequel-- heading off on that path before we get the "spicified complexity" issue handled is OFF TOPIC 2 ).This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-14-2006 03:58 PM

While randomness is, eventually part of the topic it is not going to help to get deep into it now.Please refrain.

Welcome to EvC Instagator.My sig, if the links are up to date may be of some help (if not ask around ).You might want to read the whole thread over. You are assuming a specific definition of "information" and your (correct, btw) statement has already been made.The problem is that Garret et al. are using some other meaning for the term (and I think have agreed to stick to SC (specified complexity) instead).The core of this thread is that in order for anyone to tell if your example is a "gain" or not we have to calculate a "metric" -- a number that gives a value to the amount of information before and after any change. Then we simply compare one number to the other. Case closed.However, to do the calculation we need a precise method to calculate the amount of CS before and after. Without that method then any sentence saying there is "less" or "more" of CS is meaningless. It is about like saying that a Delicious has more "appleness" than a Gala. Or that an orange has more specified appleness than a coconut.This is the sense that a "definition" is being argued over. It is indeed the very meaning of his question. Right now no one here, including, most definitely including Garret, has any idea what his question means.If I say you are taller than Billie Bob in your class most people would have not problem determining if I am right or not. There is a well-defined way of measureing tallness. You know, back 'em up to the wall, stick a knife level, mark wall, measure to floor. BB is 5 ' 6" , TI is 6' 2". You are taller.Then someone comes along and say No! BB is "taller". Huge number of people run around measureing more carefully. BB is 5' 5 and 7/8 you are 6' 1 and 3/4 etc. The new kid still doesn't agree.Finally the new kid tells us that you lay each on their back, measure distance from floor to top of stomach. BB, the somewhat chubby kid is 14" "thick". You are 7". We need to know how to measure this quantity precisely.By the way; you're new but we've been through this before. What Garret hasn't figured out yet is that his sources sound all fancy and mathematical but it is a snow job. There is no precise definition of CS. They use analogies and move the shells fast enough that their intended audience can't follow the pea and get confused.This will go on for another 50 or 100 posts and then the ID'ers will give up and go away.Complexity is, however, a valid concept to try and measure. There has been a bit of research in the area. It is very hard to get a good measure of it that is not counter-intuitive.As noted above something that is totally, and really random is very "complex" in some way but not the way we want the concept to work out as. Something the opposite of random -- totally uniform isn't very complex either though. Catching the 'inbetweenness' in a quantifiable way is the trick. I don't think it has been done yet.ABE (added by edit)
fixed a couple of my own spelling errors in much shorter words than yours.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 02-14-2006 05:46 PM

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum
Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

I'm going to be less gentle than Percy.If anyone continues the discussion of randomness they will be suspended for a short while.

We have finished with the randomness discussion. You may have missed the warning.I won't hand out any more warnings.

Without some reason for suggesting actual lying this is not appropriate!!Especially when a better explanation is an inability to follow the discussion. In any case, CUT IT OUT!

You may conclude dishonesty but I think there is more evidence for an inability to handle a bit of complexity .

Thank you Belfry. The topic is, of course, random mutations increaseing something or another.To emphasize that and since Garrett is off for some more hours and Randmand can't stay on topic for more than 3 posts I'm going to close this for awhile.