Why no positive mutation? (Earth, translation, evolution, creation, America)

[Victor]

The following is a post in another forum in which I was engaged in. There was only a few of us involved in the convo and would like to get more thoughts on the matter.

Author: Aresman
I think that the term "positive mutation" or "beneficial mutation" is really a misnomer. Who or what determines whether a mutation is "beneficial"? A mutation may be beneficial to one thing and detrimental to another.

I have no problem accepting something that could be an undeniable "beneficial mutation." My real question is this: When mutations occur, whether beneficial or detrimental, is any new genetic information added to the genome? I don't mean: "are any new genes added?" I mean: "is there any new information added that did not previously exist, or is merely a scrambling of existing information, or a duplication of existing information?"

For example: a gene pool has the blueprints for constructing an organism with code units A,B,C,D, and E, and can produce sequences of each unit up to four consecutively. Under normal circumstances, A directly follows all terminal D's (Note: This is not actual biogenetics, this is just an illustration).

Let's say one organism defined by this blueprint has the following code:
ABBCDDABABDB

This organism could have undergone a mutation, because it lacks any instance of unit E found in the blueprint. This is a loss of information.

Another organism has the following code:
ABBCDDDCABADBE

This organism could have undergone a mutation, because the presence of a C after the D didn't follow the blueprint. It is a gain of additional code from the existing gene pool, yet still there is no new information.

Since this gene pool (blueprint) does not have the information to produce an F, no organism from this gene pool will ever carry an F. However, many possibilities (with definite limitations) are possible to produce some very strange mutations. Whether beneficial or detrimental, I don't believe that mutations can add new information not already present in some form in the blueprint.

If new information can be added, it would take existing information to produce this new information. Being a Computer Scientist and programmer, I find it hard to believe that new information could possibly arise from non-information. An attempt to prove otherwise results in circular arguments.

The development of a program:
1. We observe that a certain computer program exists. How did it get here?
2. A human could have possibly written it using a certain other program called a compiler, which translated human-readable source code into binarycode that is read by another program, an operating system, running on the architecture.
3. Ah, but this particular binary instance may not have been originally compiled by a human. It could have been a copy from another instance.
4. Ok, so where did the original program from which all these arbitrary copies come from? A human or a machine?
5. It doesn't matter. The original program could have actually been generated from the running of another program, which itself was compiled.
6. Compiled in what language? C?
7. Yeah, so where did the C compiler come from?
8. It could have come from another C program. Many C compilers are written in C.
9. Ok, but the original compiler could not have been written in C, because that would be circular reasoning.
10. Of course, it was probably written in assembly. Which can cyclically be traced back to an original machine language program, precursor to the invention of "high-level languages."
11. Ah, so there is the beginning of all the information required to create this final program. Machine language, right?
12. Wrong. The information for the machine architecture is blueprinted in the circuitry -- designed by humans. The machine instructions that operate this circuitry was also designed by humans. The information to produce this program, or the program that produced this program, or the architecture that started it all arose from previously existing information (from the minds of humans), who are outside of and supercede the information by which the computer and its programs operate.
13. So where did this information come from? Since information begets information, and without information no information can be produced, where did the initial information come from. It would have to be something that supercedes the nature of information-bearing components itself. You figure out what or Who that is.

Can you apply this to the real world? If not, why not?
For those of you curious I am neutral on the topic and still learning.

The Least
~Victor

[Mr Spinkles]

Well I'm not much of an authority on biology, but we have been studying thermodynamics in physics class, and my textbook does discuss the fact that information and complexity can and do arise from disorder and lack of information, especially if a non-isolated system (like Earth) has a lot of energy flowing through it. My chemistry book also discussed how order can and does come from disorder......for example, a computer simulation with lots of small balls and a few big balls bouncing around will result in the smaller balls "herding" the big balls into the corners....the corners have a high degree of order, but the net entropy (or "disorder") of the simulation is higher because the small balls have more freedom to bounce around randomly.

Anyway, to answer your question....no, I do not think your friend's analogy can be applied to the real world. First of all, humans do not "supercede the nature" of information-bearing components. The same laws of entropy, gravity, and electrostatics that apply to them also apply to us. Secondly, it does not take "existing information" to produce new information. What it takes is "high-grade" energy (like the radiation from the Sun) to flow through a system (like the Earth), and the universe's natural tendency to become more disordered.....information and complexity can and do arise in such a situation, and such a phenomenon is not at all in conflict with the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics. A non-isolated system can certainly become highly ordered and complex (a snow-flake is a good example, as is life itself), as long as the order/complexity of the universe decreases overall.

[Mister Emu]

Can you apply this to the real world? If not, why not?

Hmm, I am not sure about the computer programmer analogy.

But as to the main point of the post, I have heard that throughout all of our forced mutation using radiation no "new" information arises, that through all natural mutations we have observed, no "new" information arises.

If anyone could refute this, I would be appreciative.

Until that comes, I will stand by what observation that I know of shows, information does not come from non-information.

Edit: What "information" would there be other than biological, if any?

[michel]

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
from The Evolution Evidence PagePART QUOTE............."Scientists have shown that beneficial mutations do occur to produce brand new alleles (variants of genes) that improve an organism's chances of survival in a particular environment. Natural selection has been demonstrated to increase the frequency of these alleles in a population. The easiest way to demonstrate this is from experiments based upon lines of organisms developed from clones (genetically identical by definition) of a single individual. The following examples are from pages 183 - 186 the book "Selection - The Mechanism of Evolution" by Graham Bell, a book which I recommend highly to anyone who wants to learn more about evolution, especially if they like to see good evidence for the claims made for natural selection. I list the original references for some of these so that anyone who wants more details will know where to look. The title of the section from which these examples come is "A Single Clone of Microbes Will Readily Respond to Natural Selection". I start out with some examples of simple mutations, but in the section on evolution of new metabolic pathways, I present examples of series of mutations that "build on one another" to add new metabolic pathways for the organism. This is the very type of "new genetic information" that creationists frequently claim is impossible."...........

From :- http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

(see the above linl from where this short extract came.

From what I understand by the above - alleles (variants of Genes) are added in the evolution be it beneficial (positive) or negative - or from an adaptation to new surroundings (which is basically evolution anyway). I must admit that I know very little on this subject.

[painted wolf]

New information happins all the time, most people who push ID never bother to actually read genetics publications... here is a list of some recent discoveries of mutations causing 'new information' mostly in the development of novel (ie new) genes and other bits of DNA

• Dean, Anthony (1998). The Molecular Anatomy of an Ancient Adaptive Event (http://dx.doi.org/10.1511/1998.1.26). American Scientist, 86(1), p. 26.
  Not long ago after the first living organisms appeared on earth about 3.5 billion years ago, they started undergoing mutations and adaptations. One of the very earliest of these created two enzymes, each with distinct but related functions, where only one previously existed. Using a combination of the modern techniques of structural biochemistry and protein engineering, combined with molecular phylogeny, the author recreates the story of this very ancient event.
  The article is about the origin of two ancient proteins from a common ancestor (enzymes that handle NAD or NADH) and is quite detailed but also written for the nonexpert. I believe Ken Miller has used the technical paper it was based on as an example. It is now freely online at American Scientist (http://dx.doi.org/10.1511/1998.1.26).

• Ranz JM, Ponce AR, Hartl DL, Nurminsky D., 2003. Origin and evolution of a new gene expressed in the Drosophila sperm axoneme (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract). Genetica. Jul;118(2-3):233-44.
  Sdic is a new gene that evolved recently in the lineage of Drosophila melanogaster. It was formed from a duplication and fusion of the gene AnnX, which encodes annexin X, and Cdic, which encodes the intermediate polypeptide chain of the cytoplasmic dynein. The fusion joins AnnX exon 4 with Cdic intron 3, which brings together three putative promoter elements for testes-specific expression of Sdic: the distal conserved element (DCE) and testes-specific element (TSE) are derived from AnnX, and the proximal conserved element (PCE) from Cdic intron 3. Sdic transcription initiates within the PCE, and translation is initiated within the sequence derived from Cdic intron 3, continuing through a 10 base pair insertion that creates a new splice donor site that enables the new coding sequence derived from intron 3 to be joined with the coding sequence of Cdic exon 4. A novel protein is created lacking 100 residues at the amino end that contain sequence motifs essential for the function of cytoplasmic dynein intermediate chains. Instead, the amino end is a hydrophobic region of 16 residues that resembles the amino end of axonemal dynein intermediate chains from other organisms. The downstream portion of Sdic features large deletions eliminating Cdic exons v2 and v3, as well as multiple frameshift deletions or insertions. The new protein becomes incorporated into the tail of the mature sperm and may function as an axonemal dynein intermediate chain. The new Sdic gene is present in about 10 tandem repeats between the wildtype Cdic and AnnX genes located near the base of the X chromosome. The implications of these findings are discussed relative to the origin of new gene functions and the process of speciation.

• A double issue of Genetica (http://ipsapp009.kluweronline.com/IP...px?J=4721&I=39) (abstract of the preface (http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024156622489)) on the evolution of novel genes (July 2003).

• Press release (2004). "Weizmann Insitute scientists show how proteins beat the evolutionary stakes (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wis122104.php)." -- discusses protein promiscuity in function

information thanks to EvoWiki: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evol...ew_information

AS you can see new information happins... DNA is not a computer program or anything like it, THANK GOD... imagine DNA like windows... species everywhere suddenly dropping thanks to the blue screen of death.... AGCT is nothing like 01.

As for bennificial mutations here are some more links that should prove helpful...
examples of benifical mutations in the Human being: http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
nice site includes recent mutations that give thier bearers increased immunity to various things like heart disease, AIDS, as well as improved immune cell functions and so on....

Again the arguments are bunk to put it nicely... outright lies otherwise.

wa:do

[michel]

Painted Wolf; as usual, you are probably the most authoritative on the forum on this subject- and, what is more, you know where to look for answers; I agree with you entirely that this cannot be compared to a computer program - I got so caught up in trying to understand the whole subject that I notice I didn't actually state an opinion on the question asked. Besides, there is little in nature that is 'forecastable' (if that exists) - Nature likes to play the chaos game, as far as I can see.

[Victor]

Thanks for your comments guys. Very informative. One of the major reasons I found interest in this was because my professor of anthropology struggled in answering it. And she has a Ph.D.
Could be I caught her at a bad time. After all, my class ran all the way until 11pm and she had been teaching most the day. I knew there had to be an answer, but as I searched and asked I did notice this to be a trouble spot for many. What I mean by trouble spot is simply that not many people can give a clear answer and there is not much information and conclusive evidence to support it. This is just my findings/experience. It does not mean it's not out there. Michel has just provided something that I will deffinately read. Thanks....

~Victor