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

So you believe just mentioning "God" means one loses a debate, eh?This message has been edited by randman, 02-14-2006 12:06 PM

You will find that is par for the course around here. The evo side can hurl insults, divert the topic, etc,...all day long, and then the very same people will make petty demands of you to refrain from even small appearances of rules violation. Moreover, the more effective your argument is, the more you will see this sort of hypocrisy directed at you.

I think it's darn clear what he is talking about. Are you saying the information needed to direct the development of all life forms was present in the first life form or that the information was added in process?If it is added in process, then do we see mutations adding such genetic information in a manner that could create all the new designs needed to direct all of the life forms to organize and develop?Instead of quibbling over whether you think the definition of information is precise enough, why don't you guys try answering the question.

It's still not clear to me how all that information is gained along the way. I get the idea that distorting existing information can create a new design, but at the same time, do we see the creation of whole new genes or whatever due to mutations?Genetics is not an area I have studied, but when I read the comments by evos in this area, it seems like they are dodging a little the main concept here, and resort to semantic arguments, as usual.

Percy, but if that is it's own thread, then why are you diverting this thread bringing up God in the manner you are?It seems you want to bring it up, and then say, but no one can answer back. If it's off-topic to consider the idea that God's life force for the universe can perhaps be detected and observed, then it's certainly off-topic to bring the matter up in the first place on a thread concerning random mutations.Btw, can you define "random"?

Can you define "random" in the context of random mutations?How about something more difficult? Consciousness? Just because consciousness is not well-defined scientifically does not mean it does not exist or should never be discussed.The simple fact is that sometimes a concept is a fairly clear concept, such as consciousness, but still without a good, full, workable definition. I think it's pretty clear what Garret is talking about in reference to information, and to not discuss looks liek sementacs to me.

So is creationism, ID, etc,.....all of those models and theories embrace microevolution as well. So if ToE is an established fact due to "evolution" being an established fact, then so is creationism and ID, and you have the enveniable position of your logic proving as factual contradictory theories.

Microevolution being a fact though proves macroevolution no more than it proves creationism. That's my point.Moreover, the term "evolution" in this thread refers to macroevolution and so you cannot call "evolution a fact" on this thread and be intellectually honest.

Hmmm...can you define "random" for us here so that we have precise definitions to work with?

Calling something a fact doesn't make it one. Nor does claiming something is observed when it is not. Macroevolution is not observed and is not a fact. That's just evos once again resorting to semantics and sophistry to try to win their arguments, appealing to authority and avoiding the substance of the data and debate.

This is new information from the perspective of information in terms of design features although I am not sure it satisfies what garret is looking for.one observation and one questionIt's clear that in the evo models, natural selection is guided by pressure from the environment (and the local environment also guides the mutations we are learning. We also know the environment is formed from the actual physical make-up of the universe. In order to assert mutations are really random, you have to assert that the formation of the universe is random, and I think that's logically off the reservation. The universe itself exhibits rules, laws, order, etc,....what causes inanimate energy to order itself?In biology, we say the organism's programming to survive (which to my mind is evidence of ID all on it's own), but what created the rules of matter and energy to be ordered by, and matter and energy itself?I think the logical inference is an Intelligent Cause did, and so regardless of the mechanisms, whether evolution or direct creation, imo, it is all Intelligent Design because even in the evo model, the underlying guiding factor for life evolving are the physical (including QM), chemical, and environmental factors in place, and these things do not demonstrably have an origin in randmonness.In other words, the random aspect is a massive assumption on the part of evos without any evidence or logic whatsoever. If, and this is a big if, life forms only through "naturalistic means", then that is still evidence of design because the design of the universe itself in it's origins dictates what designs can flow out of it.And that still ignores the fact that so-called naturalistic means only hypothesis of evos is unproven and unlikely.

Can you define what "random" means? It's a basic concept within evolutionary theory, and yet it's not often evos can define it.

I think adaptive mutations are considered by some as evidence they are more likely to occur in the first place, or that this can occur. One paper WK linked to proposed that quantum mechanics governed mutations and dealt with a possible information exchange, I believe, to cause adaptive mutations.

Thanks for the tone of your post, btw.I am not sure though that these definitions are helpful. First, just because the organism has no control over does not rule out the mutation being part of an embedded design, or actually being the result of direct intelligent action.Secondly on point 2, I think the most likely reason we cannot predict mutations (we think we can predict mutation rates by the way) is that we don't know that much about them. Using your definition, then if we ever develop the means to know the likelihood of certain mutations, those mutations that were formerly random are now not random. That then doesn't work because a definition should not be dependant on our level of technology.

jazzns, just look at the difficulty here in defining random in the context of random mutations. I don't see you guys throwing out ToE because you lack a precise enough definition.Maybe though you should?Maybe we should say the whole theory of evolution does not meet basic scientific standards because evos have not provided precise, workable definitions of their claims of random mutations.