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

Discussions involving complexity come up quite often in this forum. Generally I avoid them because, not being a math wiz...by and large, they give me a headache. However, I still do find the concept interesting, if for no other reason than because we get to read some very humorous stuff from the creationists and IDers.While I agree completely with your assertion that biologists are not really too concerned with complexity as it relates to evolutionary theory, it is still brought up constantly by creationists and IDers. And if for no other reason than to address their arguments, I do think that a working definition of biological complexity would be a nice thing to have.During one of these previous discussions I mentioned what I thought to be a fairly good example of how we might measure biological complexity. In all honesty, I can remember how badly it was shot down (I’m relatively certain that it went down in flames) and since you do at least appear to have a handle on the problem, I'll ask you what you think.Could we not define biological complexity in terms of the number(s) of differentiated cell types? You’re correct in that if we simply look at morphological complexity, the jellyfish (having many more appendages) would be more complex than humans. However, in terms of differentiated cell types . well I think humans would win out on that level. If we looked at behavioral complexity, those with complex behaviors would “win”. But again, if we use differentiation, then perhaps not . depending on their neural complexity. This system wouldn’t be biased towards any particular cell type or the total number of cells, but rather it would only take into account how many different (specialized) cells types are present.This method may not be applicable in all instances at the Species level, consequently many people may find it meaningless or useless...but so what. Do we really need to determine complexity at all levels? Do cats have more cell types than dogs? Is it important to evolutionary theory to know if a dog is more complex than a cat, or a human more complex than a hamster? I think not. Perhaps it is correct to say that a dog and cat are equal in complexity. However, this method would certainly aid in looking at general trends in evolution as they relate to an increase or decrease in complexity...would it not?This would also eliminate the concept of an evolutionary progression from simple to complex . that things become more complex as time goes on and are therefore somehow "better". Of course, at the single cell level, we may have to incorporate other criteria, seeing as how being a single cell is as simple as this system could go . .meaning that Prokaryots are equal in complexity to Eukaryots. Perhaps at this level we could take organelles into account. I don’t know . I’m just flinging crap out here . Just curious as to your thoughts. Please...take aim and fire at will.

This is true...but let's address it on a realistic level. If two organisms are identical in cellular differentiation, but one has a somewhat larger brain or a more "complex" arrangement of the same cell type(s), then I think we would probably be looking at very very similar organisms to start with, and any talk about which is more complex really wouldn't matter. Like I said, I don't think we have to concern ourselves with measuring the complexity of every single thing on this planet down to the Species level. In other words...how often do you think such a scenario would arise? And wouldn't it be likely that in these circumstances, that the two organisms in question would be closely related?Look, in my opinion, creationists and IDers concern themselves with complexity for a couple of reasons. First, they want to equate complexity with some arbitrary level of “what is better”. To be more complex is to be “further evolved” . which to them means better. Of course, not accepting the ToE means that they also want to discuss complexity because they somehow or another want to convince laypersons that complex structures cannot arise via mutation and natural selection. I don’t claim to understand a lot of their argument, and undoubtedly they will correct me here if I’m mistaken . but I’m not so sure that they really care about differences in complexity between closely related organisms (that whole macro/micro evolution nonsense). Instead, they are more after explanations of how simple things (i.e. bacteria) can become complex things (i.e. humans).However, I also completely agree that defining complexity (as it relates to evolutionary theory) is something that creationists should have to deal with themselves. By the same token...they are a vocal group and have been known to put enormous pressure on school boards to get their agenda into science classes. In other words...ignoring them will not make them go away. They get in front of a group of parents and start in about complexity...using big words and making it appear as if they have a clue...and the next thing you know...little Jack and Jill are learning all about a boat load of animals joyfully bouncing around on some waves during a prolonged sprinkle. So, whether we like it or not . whether we want it or not . whether we believe in its importance to understanding the ToE . the concept of “complexity” is out there in the real World, and we do need to deal with it. I can relate...next Tuesday I go in for a root canal. Oh friggen boy, I can hardly wait.Edited to fix a typo.This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 02-16-2006 02:45 PM

The reason I think that differentiation would be a nice tool to "measure" complexity is because it is not subjective. All multicellular organisms undergo cellular differentiation, so I still think it could be used as a way to measure complexity. It's just that not all things can be listed as being more or less complex in comparison. Some things are simply equally complex...and that's just the way it is.
I, too, like definitions that actually define something in a non-arbitrary sense. We can theoretically determine the differentiation number for all living things...it's non-subjective (for the most part I guess...but I'm sure that some scientists could find a way to argue about whether or not this cell or that cell is a separate example of differentiation or not), and for the most part, I think it would work. If it appears that one organism has a complex neural arrangement, but still has a lesser differentiation number than it’s counterpart, so what? The measurement is, after all, simply "our" designator (much like our current classification system). But hey, who cares . if it turns out that we (humans) are less complex than say...a bottlenose dolphin, then so be it The point is, is that we would still have some sort of measurement that would apply to all living things in the same manner. Measure their differentiation number, list them accordingly, and let the chips fall where they may.
I suppose your right though . the exercise itself would probably be futile. Science doesn’t really need a complexity measurement, and even if one were supplied, if it didn’t give the creationists and IDers that values they wanted, they’d simply assert that it was all wrong or pretend that it didn’t even exist.

You keep saying this kind of stuff but have yet to support any of it. Where is the evidence to support design? Seriously randman, this thread is almost at its end and I have yet to read anything from IDers that can show design. Give me an example of the design. Something that cannot be expained by mutation and natural selection...something...anything.If mutations are not random (unpredictabel) but instead are guided...the guide must be blind and deaf, because he (she) certainly did seem to take a rather strange path to many of the features we currently see. You know...more like random wandering.

Again, randman, simply saying this does not make it so. Evidence, randman, evidence. What does "reflect order, intelligence, design" even mean. This is not true. There is nothing that suggests an intelligent designer...other than you repeatedly saying there is. In science we use evidence...not "suggestions" and "reflections". Nonsense...no such evidence exits. You see to have a real problem supplying this evidence that you continually speak of. Come on randman, step up to the plate and provide actual evidence. Something that can be tested, something that has been experimentally determined...something that is repeatable. WTF are you talking about? This is a complete dodge and you know it.

Yes...and they do. I have a feeling that you have no idea what this means. How can you decide if something follows a probable pattern? Are you attempting to conflate improbable with impossible? This could be an area of confusion for you, in how it relates to the ToE. Here you go again. It by no means is either logical or illogical to infer such a thing. It's a meaningless statement that sounds impressive and may fool your typical yahoo...but in reality is scientifically vacuous. Complete BS. Explain to me how science does not support the ToE. Tell me anything at all that is not scientifically supported by the ToE...and for once, back up your claim. Explain to me exactly how/why the justification you present explains the scientific error...meaning that the science we use to support that which you claim is false is indeed not scientifically valid. So what? Explain to me how this disproves evolution.Your are very good at spouting nonsensical garbage that sure looks and sounds good, but has no real meaning...at least in how it relates to the ToE. The big bang does not prove intelligent design. Sorry randman...but trying to relate a cause and effect relationship between the big bang and an intelligent force causing it is just ridiculous and I'll bet that you can in absolutely no way provide any real...tangible...testable, evidence to support such a claim. If you can, then for the love of all things Holy...do it . just do it randman...finally...be the first to provide evidence. Can you do that?

What does logic have to do with it randman? Illogocal things happen all of the time. See...think that this is your problem. You cannot grasp the concept that unpredictable mutations and natural selection can lead to some pretty illogocal things. You can infer whatever the hell you want. In science we use evidence...and you have yet to provide any to support your assertion that the universe requires a designer. No, it is not more resonable to conclude any such thing. Evidence randman...evidence. Do you have any?