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

That would be bad science, you're right.What is actually said is quite different of course. What they say is more akin to "here is how species must orginate, where did they come from? Perhaps earlier species. Isn't it odd the way that life can be organised into nested hierarchies based on unique characteristics those creatures have? Perhaps this trend of speciation could happen over and over and be an explanation for the fossil record as a record of life on earth? Let's test this, if all species on earth are related we would expect to see...X. Let's look, oh look, we see X. If Y says the same thing as X we'll be onto something. Oh look we see Y. Perhaps this idea has merit...", and so on. Given that it too billions of years for multicellularity to come, I don't see why would we would expect to observe this happening in 100 years of looking. That's because macroevolution is basically defined as 'evolution that is not observed but inferred from the evidene'. The evidence that validates the claims has been presented. Its just that non-evos don't consider that validation for various reasons.

---

You are the IDer on the board, do you have a way of measuring information, or specified complexity? Then we can see if whatever it is increases. It doesn't have to be absolute numbers, but relative numbers will be fine, that way we can see the increasing or decreasing that is claimed to happen. It would be good if the ID/creo camp could validate their claim about specified complexity. If that is not possible then it would be helpful to define it so others can validate/falsify it.A while ago Dembski said: If that is still the case, then claiming that evolution cannot increase or decrease specified complexity is a curious thing indeed. This is what Dembski calls the million dollar question, does nature exhibit actual specified complexity? How is it measured?

Modulous, just look at the difficulties evos have with defining randomness in reference to mutations, much less actually providing a metric to verify the concept, and yet that has not prevented evos from using the concept.If you want to bash imprecision in defining information, fine. Just don't be a hypocrite and suggest evos have done any better.

I don't see evos having difficulty defining random. You want me to do it again for you? If I said that mutations are more random than uranium decay, you'd be justified in asking how I was measuring the randomness of each. I am not bashing the IDers imprecision in defining information. I am criticizing saying something like 'Random mutations can't cause an increase in specified complexity in the genome' when they don't know if nature exhibits specified complexity, nor do they have the ability to even define it, let alone measure it.

But randman, the randomness of mutation isn't an especially important concept in evolution. We're not holding it up as any sort of evidence for or against evolution. If it does not meet the criteria of a given definition of randomness, what does that mean? Not much, except that mutation isn't random. Not particularly exciting or revolutionary.

Really? I would say that it is at the very heart of evolutionist thinking. If mutations are guided, then that changes the whole significance of evolutionary theory and mechanisms.

So that's the definition you're using? That random means "unguided?"Well that settles the definition issue. If we can gain any evidence that it is guided, we can work from there. So far, we don't have any.This message has been edited by Belfry, 02-17-2006 07:01 PM

The degree of non-randomness determines the degree potentially of ID, if you look at it one way. So if you think Intelligent Design is OK, then I guess it's not as critical. If you are hostile towards ID, then it is very critical.

"Hostile towards ID" is not a scientific position, it is a personal one. The reason that most of us are opposed to teaching ID as science is that there is no evidence for it nor any way of falsifying it, and thus it does not qualify as a scientific theory.

Well belfry, that's why we shouldn't be teaching evolution either then; since there is no way to falsify evolution.Imo, Id is a much more reasonable and logical framework to approach science from. To a priori rule out a Designer is illogical and leads to a skewed perspective of the data.

I begin to fear the wrath of the admins - there are countless ways that many aspects of the TofE could be falsified, but haven't been. But I think it should go into its own thread, and I don't have the time to devote to it tonight. If you would like to start one, I will join in as time permits.

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.

Percy, Spot on.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

It appears to me that a lot of the comunication probems in this thread is due to differeces in the way people understand the word information.Some of us may have seen this word defined in the study of information theory and will have no trouble accepting that an increase of the number of alleles in a population represents an increase in the information content and, therefore, answer the topic question with a resounding YES.But the ID crowd doesn't accept that, since they are thinking about a more intuitive notion of what is meant by information, and figure that an increase in the number of alleles in the population may mean no new information at all, since these new alleles may be non-meaningfull.To te credit of the IDers, this concept of what information is seems to be a perfectly valid one, even if not easily defined.The meaning of information here made me remember something a famous sculptor (can't remember which one) said about his work. He said he doesn't create any sculptures, and that all that he's done was to remove the stone excess, and bring about the sculpture that was already in the rock to begin with.the example above makes clear that information (in the IDers intuitive sense) may be created during the evolutionary process when natural seletion removes the excesses, just like a sculpture is created b removing the excesses.This removes the paradox of how can new information be created by a random process, since the information here (in the IDers sense) is actually being created during the natural selection phase of the evolutionary process, and that phase of the process is not random at all.

Glad you decided to join us and look forward to learning from you.At the end of this post are some links to threads that may make your stay here more enjoyable.Again, welcome to EvC.

---

We do see this. I know that I myself have linked to a specific instance of evolved multi-cellularity on many occasions.You should know better than to post a claim you know to be false.