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

No one was banned, Rand.If you have comments to make about that brief suspension, take it to the appropriate thread.

---

Trust me.

I think this is clearly the rational evo response, not quibling over trying to define precisely the term. The idea would be that "information" is really the product of the relationships between things, and that since it really is not a random process, but one governed by rules, the needed changes in relationship arise from the interaction of the environment, chemicals, and those rules.I think that could be an effective argument against the ID position on this, although I would like to hear what more knowledgeable IDers have to say.However, this really subtly moves evolutionary theory more into the ID camp, or theistic evo camp, as it shows that whatever formed the rules indirectly at the least plays a determining role in the formation and development of life and the information for that life on earth.

Precisely! And this is exactly why I still hold that theistic evolution is a reasonable position for those who wish to reconcile their religious devotion with the scientific evidence....even though I am not such a person.

But it's not the whole argument and it involves seriously downplaying the significance of randomness in evolutionary theory, so much so it could rightly be called a form of ID....Ironically, I feel that if one believes in evolution, that alone ought to make the thinking person believe in God since it is such an improbable theory and so guided by the inherent design and order in the universe.

There's nothing at all reasonable about theistic evolution--positing, as it does, a cruel god.

Or an indifferent one, or a weak one. There would be nothing cruel about a god who created via evolution because he had no power to create otherwise.Plus - there's nothing inherently unreasonable about a cruel god. It's just not particularly pleasant a concept, is all. Plenty of religions have cruel gods, though.

There is much in Scripture that suggests the Abrahamic God is certainly capable of cruelty and indifference on earth. However, it's not a topic for the Science forums.

Those who believe in the Abrahamic God do not regard him as cruel. Only his enemies do. In any case, evolution is incompatible with belief in Him, whereas it is not incompatible with the God of theistic evolution. The God of theistic evolution presides over a bloody nature, because that is what evolution is all about, death and suffering. The God of the Bible made a perfect world that became corrupted because of human sin which introduced death.

On the contrary, if you understood the hebrew in Genesis, evolution is quite compatable with it. But that is off topic in this thread.

I would point out that in your example an outside intelligence was needed to determine which parts were excess and which were meaningful. It seems to support the fact that random changes don't bring new meaning. If they did, nobody would be too impressed with that mountain in South Dakota. Just give it enough time and chance will remove what isn't a part of a president.

Many Christian pastors read Hebrew, and preach the YEC interpretation of Genesis.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-20-2006 11:25 AM

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.

If evolution is true, then it shows design. The reason is that evolution, if true, is the product of the properties and rules and character of the physical laws and make-up of the universe which reflect order, intelligence, design. Everything we know suggests there is an Intelligent Cause to the origin of the universe, even to the point that what many considered an ancient myth "let there be light" has been confirmed by science (the Big Bang).So assuming universal common descent was true, it would be very strong evidence for Intelligent Design. What is absurd is to posit the idea that there is no Intelligent Cause, and thus ID is wrong, at any point in the universe. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that consciousness is intertwined with teh fabric of space-time, and as such, that this Intelligent Cause is interactive at all points in space-time.

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.

Flies, the evidence is that evolutionary processes obey and conform to physical and chemical laws, rules, propabable patterns, etc,...The physical structure of the universe, according to you guys (not me), gives rise to the first life form and evolution of life forms. Since it is logical to infer an Intelligent Cause ordering and creating the physical structure of the universe (it had a beginning for example), then that means ToE should rightly be considered ID since it is indirectly at a minimum caused by an Intelligent Cause.To assert that life can best be understood as not having been caused by an Intelligent Cause, as many evos claim, is not supported by science at all. There are physical principles in the universe. That is order, period. The universe obeys principles. There is not total randomness where no principles exist.The Big Bang is evidence the universe has a beginning. Science has always shown us there is cause and effect. So we see the effect, and we know forensically by direct observations of the universe that this effect contains well-ordered principles that give rise to physical form; hence life can best be understood, even under evo models, as arising through the action of an Intelligent Cause.