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

In order to adequately discuss the issue, I'll first put forward a definition of what I mean by information in this context. Stated simply, it means organized complexity. Take the alphabet as an example; the random letters mean nothing on their own. Only when they are ordered into a complex and meaningful pattern do they take on any meaning, and thereby become information. Information is the product of a mental process, not a material one.In terms of human biology, information would be defined as the message or meaning that is derived from the ordered complexity of DNA molecules. DNA by itself means nothing unless organized into a structure that is meaningful, so DNA is not information but a medium by which information is conveyed.Evolutionary theory would require the earliest simple organisms to gain new information (ordered complexity) which would allow for new properties (ie. bone structure or body plan). However, all observations of mutations are either not moving at all or are moving in the opposite direction, meaning they are decreasing in ordered complexity or not changing at all.According to Dr. Jonathan Wells, a cell biologist at the University of Berkeley, in response to an article on this subject by Richard Dawkins:”But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variations needed for evolution ... The sorts of variations which can contribute to Darwinian evolution, however, involve things like bone structure or body plan. There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.The claim that mutations explain differences among genes, which in turn explain differences among organisms, is the Neo-Darwinian equivalent of alchemy. Compare:We know that mutations happen, and that they alter DNA sequences; organisms differ in their DNA sequences, so the differences between organisms must be due (ultimately) to mutations.We know that we can change the characteristics of metals by chemical means; lead and gold have different characteristics; therefore it must be possible to change lead into gold by chemical means.In both cases, the mechanisms invoked to explain the phenomena are incapable of doing so. Darwinists (like alchemists) have misconceived the nature of reality, and thus hitched their wagon to an imaginary horse.’So, the question is...Can you provide an example of a random mutation that is known to increase the information content of the genome?This message has been edited by Garrett, 02-13-2006 02:24 PM

Sorry...this is my first topic submission. I'll work it up as you suggest and repost.

Here's the definition on wikipedia:Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species. In contrast, microevolution refers to smaller evolutionary changes (generally described as changes in genotype frequencies) in populations.No, doing something you did before isn't an increase in information....usually just the opposite. Take Darwin's famous beetles as an example. He viewed the mutation that led to a loss of wings as advantageous, which it was, because they weren't swept off the tiny island into the ocean. In reality, they had a mutation which resulted in corruption of information in their DNA, which led to a loss of the ability to create wings. Degraded information led to an advantage. This is moving in the opposite direction of evolution.Another example would be antibiotic resistance. Bacteria develop resistence to antibiotics in many different ways, none of which include an increase in the specificity of the DNA. In some instances, natural selection of populations that are already resistant is the method. In other cases, the mutation will cause a defect in the bacteria's process of transporting the antibiotic into the cell. Of course this results in resistance because the antibiotic can no longer be correctly processed. Again, this is a degradation of an existing process and certainly not an increase in specified complexity within the genome.

---

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

I'm afraid your confusing size with complexity. Adding extra copies of the same information doesn't add any new meaning, just more instances of the same meaning.As to my quote, "Information is the product of a mental process, not a material one." The implication is that God put it there, not chance.Again, there is no contradiction. Information is real and exists in the physical world, yet is not a material process. This is plain to see really. MacBeth didn't write itself, a human did. The blueprints used to assemble a plane didn't come together naturally, rather a human designed them. Likewise, the blueprints of our bodies (the information content in our DNA) did not create itself but was designed. Although I'm sure you'd suggest that chimps could write MacBeth given enough time. I think given enough time chimps could create order (AB AB CD CD AB AC AC). But not specified complexity (To be or not to be...that is the question).

I know you don't understand my point...no need for clarification there.In addition, I don't think you even understand the creationist position, but that again would be another topic.I don't refute the fact that great complexity exists in the universe...in fact my view would require it. Also, I wouldn't disparage the idea of "natural selection" which you refer to. Of course this happens...it is observable science. What isn't observable science is that a mutation would give a frog the information needed to generate an opposable thumb. No matter how many successive mutatations you put the poor chap through, he's still a frog. Granted, he may be awful weird looking at the end. It's evolutionary thought that promotes the fairly tell that a frog can become a prince.As for religious thinkers violating the laws of science with their theories...I think we have a serious Pot/Kettle relationship going on here. Try these on for size:The Law of Cause and Effect (What was the first cause again?)The Law of Biogenesis (rats surely come from trash right?)The Law of Inertia (what was the outside force that triggered movement?)The Law of Angular Momentum (how did the universe settle into orbital patterns or condense into lumps with no outside force?)The Law of Probability (the probability of just 1 specific protein arising by chance has been figured at 10 to the power of 520. And that is just for one protien. The number of atoms needed to completely fill the universe is 10 to the power of 130)Not to mention the problems in the area of thermodynamics.

I'd say macro-level is refering to those activities occurring at the level of macroevolution. ;-)You do agree that DNA contains the genetic instructions needed for the biological development of all cellular forms of life, right?If you simply define evolution as change, then the loss of information needed to build a certain feature surely is evolution. The problem is that is not an intellectually honest definition of evolution. Unless the instructions were present in the first simple celled organism that were needed for the biological development of all life forms to come, then extra info would be needed along the way.Are you suggesting that all of the instructions were there from the beginning?

Interesting that you ask me to limit myself to the topic even as you don't limit yourself in that manner.And believing in a supernatural God doesn't violate science, rather is totally consistent. Observable science tells us that our natural laws prohibit life from arising from non-life unassisted. Thus a supernatural first cause is logically needed.

Since we obviously are wanting a more scientific definition and quantification of genetic information...I'll provide a couple links to what I'm referring to. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Information, Science and Biology | Answers in Genesis

I think you misread...the definition of macroevolution is changes ABOVE the level of species. Speciation would fall into the category of microevolution which I wouldn't dispute. As you say...it's observable science. I'm a fan of science that is repeatable...call me a nut.

Contrary to your views, you don't have a monopoly on science. (see this list of scientists who believe the biblical account Bios | Answers in Genesis )I wouldn't cloak my true views and likewise wouldn't want creationism taught in school. It's pretty obvious that people viewing the world through evolutionary glasses have no concept of what creationism is.The only thing I'd change with the current system is to allow more critical analysis of different scientific aspects of evolution. That's really all that is needed.This message has been edited by Garrett, 02-14-2006 12:44 PM

The data on how to determine this is provided in one of my previous posts. Have at a ranking list if you like.I'm afraid you're still missing the point though. The amount of information content relative to different types of animals is not important. The fact that they have different information is all that is important. For instance, a pig doesn't have the genetic instructions needed to generate wings (until pigs fly that is). Conversely, a bird has no genetic instructions for a little curly tail.Where did the new instructions come from. Either instructions for every biological feature for every animal were included in the first cell, or it was added along the way. Show me the process.

Nope, that is order...not specified complexity. Snowflakes form because of the designed properties inherent within the water molucules. They don't decide to form a certain way because it looks pretty.That is tantamount to saying that a pile of sand conveys meaning. Sure, it has an order, but only because the mass, size and other properties of the granules cause it to form a certain way.

Let's use this sentence as an example. Forget about biology for a second...simple information theory here(and yes it's off topic slightly):The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogLet's duplicate part of it and add it back in, much in the same way a random change to the sentence may do.The quick brown fox lazy dog jumped over the lazy dogThis is extra order, but not extra information. In fact, it corrupts the previously existing information. Most beneficial mutations are doing just that. If you are talking about actual "length" of information...it's increasing. If you are talking about the meaning of the information, it is not increasing.

Your right...DNA is made of base pairs, which when put into order are translated (also by our bodies) using a language convention. It's like the alphabet. It only means something given the right language convention.1) Do we all agree there are 26 letters in the English alphabet?
2) That being the case, is it possible that monkey's could randomly edit a Word document and we would have more text.
3) Guess what...we would but it sure wouldn't convey any new information. (Maybe you think it would, that is where we disagree.)

---

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

If you need me to define meaning...I'd have to start by explaining the meaning of the English language so you'd understand the definition. Come on, we all know what meaning is.From this point forward I'll refer to information as specified complexity so we don't play this little game. Adding length, does not add specified complexity and meaning.