Why no positive mutation?

[Quiddity]

MS: that article does indeed seem to answer my question on a minor level.

I suppose I was looking for examples that are similar to that of the “primordial soup”. Where material was indeed bonding and you can see the physical changes on a major level. Probably asking for too much I guess. This takes time right?
I think I need to read a book on abiogenesis. Anyone know of a good book for this that is for the common folk?

~Victor

 

[Valjean]

Points of clarification:

• Any change in the genetic make up (whether bad or good) is an addition of information.
• You do not need new genetic material in order to have evolution to take place.

Do I have this right?

~Victor

The latter is right, but the former's questionable. A deletion of genetic material qualifies as a "change in genetic make-up." By your definition a deletion would be an addition.

 

[jwu]

@Victor:

You seem to use the term "information" pretty much as Shannon defined it.

Shannon's works about the transmission of information at Bell Laboratories. In some way the process of copying a strain of DNA can be considered to be such a transmission of information.

However, since Shannon's field of expertise was telecommunications, his own version of information theory considers every change to the original message to be a loss of information. In case of telecommunication you want the precise message to be transmitted, any change is undesired.
Your words that mutations merely "scramble" existing information resemble this. By definition, in shannon's information theory, the original message has the highest possible content of information. Any change/scrambling is regarded as a loss.

However - that's not really applicable in a meaningful way to biology. It only makes sense if no mutation at all is desireable, and the "best" possible result of a procreation is a precise clone. That's not the case in reality. A mutation rate of zero would result in a horribly unflexible species which will be outcompeted by others sooner or later for sure.

Technically the genome of a human can be derived from that of an amoeba by nothing else but the scrambling of such "preexisting" information, if the amoeba is defined to have information in first instance.


Bascially the whole "no new information, just scrambling previously existing ones" argument which is circulating around on the internet is nothing but a definitions game:
It gets defined that a certain being has information in its genome, and then it is claimed that mutations cannot produce "true" new information, i.e. that the genome of that species could not have come into existence by mutation.

 

[Quiddity]

Who is Shannon?

However - that's not really applicable in a meaningful way to biology.

I know.

Technically the genome of a human can be derived from that of an amoeba by nothing else but the scrambling of such "preexisting" information, if the amoeba is defined to have information in first instance.

Once the information has begun I can totally see how things can evolve from it. But as I said I am having a difficult time grasping how it was before (primordial soup) any information or rather genetic material of any use came about. I call it a miracle, others would contend that.

The Least
~Victor

 

[Steve]

The huge amount of information carried by all living things on the planet is best explained by an intelligent designer IMHO - the idea that the information for the creation of skin, blood, bone, acids in the stomach, feathers etc and the intricate assembly of various parts of living creatures that make hearing, vision, taste/smell etc possible - all having come about by chance is absurd.


The following taken from - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp

When they begin to talk about mutations, evolutionists tacitly acknowledge that natural selection, by itself, cannot explain the rise of new genetic information. Somehow they have to explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions for feathers and other wonders that never existed in ‘simpler’ life forms. So they place their faith in mutations.


In the process of defending mutations as a mechanism for creating new genetic code, they attack a straw-man version of the creationist model, and they have no answer for the creationists’ real scientific objections. Scientific American states this common straw-man position and their answer to it.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.


On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism’s DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. [SA 82]


​

This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can confer resistance, as already discussed. We have also pointed out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).

.......

​

The following taken from - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/information.asp

....

Observations
1. The coded information used in the construction of living things is transferred from pre-existing messages (programs), which are themselves transmitted from pre-existing messages.

2. During this transfer, the fate of the information follows the dictates of message/information theory and common sense. That is, it either stays the same, or decreases (mutational loss, genetic drift, species extinction) but seldom, probably never, is it seen to increase in any informationally meaningful sense.

Deduction from observation No. 2
3. Were we to look back in time along the line of any living population, e.g. humans (the information in their genetic programs) we would see an overall pattern of gradual increase the further back we go.

Axiom
4. No population can be infinitely old, nor contain infinite information. Therefore:

Deduction from points 3 and 4
5. There had to be a point in time in which the first program arose without a pre-existing program—i.e. the first of that type had no parents.

Further observation
6. Information and messages only ever originate in mind or in pre-existing messages. Never, ever are they seen to arise from spontaneous, unguided natural law and natural processes.

....

​

 

[michel]

Hi jwu !

You seem to have made a flying start! - Seeing that this was your first post on the forum, I wanted to welcome you.

You might like to have a look at :- Articles for New Members ; from there, there is a link to the forum rules, which you ought to see.


I hope you like it here!
Hey, I look forward to your posts; we're all here to learn.....

 

[jwu]

Thanks for the welcome, Michel!

Who is Shannon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_E._Shannon
A mathematician who laid the foundations of one of the flavours of information theory. His information theory is strongly related to telecommunications things, which is the reason why he defined it that the amounth of information cannot increase during the transmission of the message. Only loss of information is possible due to disturbance, by definition.

Once the information has begun I can totally see how things can evolve from it. But as I said I am having a difficult time grasping how it was before (primordial soup) any information or rather genetic material of any use came about. I call it a miracle, others would contend that.

That's rather an abiogenesis thing then.
However, please explain in a bit more detail what this "initial information" is that you are referring to.
The formation of strands of RNA in a soup of chemicals even has been observed!

Observations
1. The coded information used in the construction of living things is transferred from pre-existing messages (programs), which are themselves transmitted from pre-existing messages.

2. During this transfer, the fate of the information follows the dictates of message/information theory and common sense. That is, it either stays the same, or decreases (mutational loss, genetic drift, species extinction) but seldom, probably never, is it seen to increase in any informationally meaningful sense.

Yep, a clear misapplication of Shannon's information theory.
The loss of information that they talk about is totally meaningless to evolution.

That is, it either stays the same, or decreases (mutational loss, genetic drift, species extinction) but seldom, probably never, is it seen to increase in any informationally meaningful sense.

{emphasis mine}
With that backpedaling they are just trying to hide their strawman. In Shannon's information theory no increase of information is allowed by definition, there wouldn't have been any need to soften this up there.
In Kolmogorov-Chaitin information theory an increase of information is explicitly allowed though. What they are doing is mixing these two totally distinct types of information theory, each with its own field of application, to get what they desire.

 

[Quiddity]

Thanks for the welcome, Michel!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_E._Shannon
A mathematician who laid the foundations of one of the flavours of information theory. His information theory is strongly related to telecommunications things, which is the reason why he defined it that the amounth of information cannot increase during the transmission of the message. Only loss of information is possible due to disturbance, by definition.

Gotcha, thanks.

That's rather an abiogenesis thing then.
However, please explain in a bit more detail what this "initial information" is that you are referring to.

I'll try. I am not a biologist expert by any means and I got stuck on using computers as an analogy, being fully aware that there is a difference. Just helps me. I don't use that to misrepresent. Although I am a theist I am not out to disprove evolution and especially misrepresent it. For it appears we have enough people doing that already. But it goes both ways.. . Atheist misunderstand or misrepresent religious text all the time as well. Nevertheless this is why we are here, right? To learn and grow.

When I say information I mean to attach that which attracts one atom/molecule to another. That's all the detail I can give....

The formation of strands of RNA in a soup of chemicals even has been observed!

Really? You got something I can read on this?

~Victor

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Great post jwu, thanks for the information on information theory.

Once the information has begun I can totally see how things can evolve from it. But as I said I am having a difficult time grasping how it was before(primordial soup) any information or rather genetic material of any use came about. I call it a miracle, others would contend that.

You are assuming that there is no "information" in inorganic material. One could argue, I think, that the laws of nature themselves (i.e. the electrostatic force, the mass of the electron) contain "information" that, taken together, form "instructions" for the behavior of matter.

Concerning your "brick wall" analogy....you assume that the wall can only gain information/complexity with the appearance of another brick. However, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.....so although genetic mutations may simply be "rearranging the bricks", the truth is that all chemical interactions are "rearranging the bricks". Lightning is a "rearrangement" of electrons, and the incredibly complex snowflake is a "rearrangement" of water molecules. One could, in fact, take a pile of randomly assorted bricks and, without adding any bricks that weren't already there, rearrange them in complex pattern (and therefore increase the "information" of the former pile of bricks). As long as this newly-formed pattern of bricks serves in some way to increase the randomness of the universe (as snowflakes and organisms do by exhausting thermal energy), it is in agreement with the laws of physics and chemistry. Hardly a "miracle", unless you believe the laws of nature themselves are a "miracle" (and there's certainly nothing wrong with that belief).

Let's have a reality check:
1) It is predicted by thermodynamics that the information and complexity in non-isolated systems will increase. Snowflakes, organic molecules, and organisms are examples of this.
2) The Earth is a non-isolated system, as are all of its organisms.
3) Organic material has been observed to come from inorganic material.
4) All matter--including DNA strands--obeys the exact same laws of nature as all other matter.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

The Urey-Miller experiment

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired through the atmosphere and water vapor to simulate lightning, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle. At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 21 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant.

The molecules produced were relatively simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that natural processes could produce the building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them in the first place.

 

[Yerda]

The Information Challenge by Richard Dawkins.

I believe Pah posted this a while back. It's a great article concerning the misinterpretation of genetic information by creationists and explains quite nicely, by example, how new functional genes (information) can be added to the genome.

[Off-topic note: Is the little blue star above my avatar and that of several other members related to join date?]

 

[Steve]

The Information Challenge by Richard Dawkins.

I believe Pah posted this a while back. It's a great article concerning the misinterpretation of genetic information by creationists and explains quite nicely, by example, how new functional genes (information) can be added to the genome.

For a response to the above article and to point out many of the fallacies found within, the following article is well worth a read for anyone who is not compleatly blinded by the evolution theory.

The Problem of Information
for the Theory of Evolution
- Has Dawkins really solved it?
Dr. Royal Truman





Heres a small extract -

Examples include aspects of blood clotting, closed circular DNA, electron transport, the bacterial flagellum, telomeres, photosynthesis and transcription regulation. It is absurd to argue that the individual parts arose sequentially (or in parallel) and uncoordinated. Can multi-part systems, which are themselves only a component of a living organism, arise by chance? Professor Siegfried Scherer, a creationist microbiologist, published a paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology on the energy-producing mechanism of bacterial photosynthesis.[size=-1][45][/size] He estimated the number of basic functional states involve no fewer than five new proteins to move from ‘fermentative bacteria, perhaps similar to Clostridium’ to fully photosynthetic bacteria. His calculations show that ‘the range of probabilities estimated is between 10 power of [size=-1]40[/size] and 10 power of [size=-1]104[/size].’ [size=-1][46][/size] (Note: the total number of particles in the universe is estimated at around 10 power of [size=-1]80[/size]). And this is a trivial change compared to producing organs such as a brain or heart.

To Scherer’s astronomical number, one must factor in the consideration of what all can go wrong when photons interact with ‘chromophores’, the portions of molecules able to absorb light in photosynthesis. If not properly designed, ‘free radicals’ can be generated which would wreak havoc on the cell.

​

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Steve-- "The range of probabilities" of what, exactly? (From your extract)

 

[Steve]

Steve-- "The range of probabilities" of what, exactly? (From your extract)

The probability of ‘fermentative bacteria, perhaps similar to Clostridium’ changing to fully photosynthetic bacteria taking place by chance is within the range of 1 in 10 power of [size=-1]40[/size] and 1 in 10 power of [size=-1]104[/size].

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well, that depends on what you mean by "chance". The probability that a bunch of randomly moving, isolated H2O molecules will spontaneously form a complete snowflake "by chance" is infitesimal....but, as we all know H2O molecules come together to form highly ordererd snowflakes quite often. This is because the water molecules in the atmosphere are NOT isolated from their environment....nor are organisms like fermentative bacteria isolated. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, non-isolated systems within the universe can move from a high-probable state to a low-probable state (i.e. they can gain complexity and order) as long as they cause the randomness of the universe as a whole to increase. Snowflakes do this by emitting heat as they cool, and organisms do it by emitting....well, you know, poop and stuff.

How exactly was this statistic calculated?

 

[Cynic]

The huge amount of information carried by all living things on the planet is best explained by an intelligent designer IMHO - the idea that the information for the creation of skin, blood, bone, acids in the stomach, feathers etc and the intricate assembly of various parts of living creatures that make hearing, vision, taste/smell etc possible - all having come about by chance is absurd.

Have you actually sat down and studied evolution extensively? I was a christian for approximately 9 years and had a total disregard for evolution, that is, until I did my own research. It seems so evident and obvious through converging lines of science. I've been reading a little bit on evolutionary psychologiy shich is a new field of science, and it seems to explain human behavior on profound levels, it would be absurd to ignore this theory. Looking back on what I used to believe reminds me of a little allegory called Plato's Cave.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

I don't think this statement is valid. What is this person's definition of "feature"?​

 

[michel]

Have you actually sat down and studied evolution extensively? I was a christian for approximately 9 years and had a total disregard for evolution, that is, until I did my own research. It seems so evident and obvious that evolution is real. Looking back on what I used to believe reminds me of a little allegory called Plato's Cave.

​

I don't think this statement is valid. What is this person's definition of "feature"?​

I agree cynic (about evolution) - but I still believe in Initial intelligent design.

"10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. - I agree makes no sense.

 

[Cynic]

I agree cynic (about evolution) - but I still believe in Initial intelligent design.

But isn't this due to you religious preferance? Or, what exactly do you mean by initial intelligent design?

"10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. - I agree makes no sense.

Scientists have experimented with fruit flies by exposing them to higher amounts of radiation, which speeds up genetic mutation. Looking at the results, there the experiement has definitely produced new features. For instance, there were flies with eyes that had bananna shaped eyes and flies with no wings.

But say in this same case, when an organism that has a flat eye that evolves an eye that is more cone shaped, that is an elimination of a trait And the development of a new feature. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[michel]

But isn't this due to you religious preferance? Or, what exactly do you mean by initial intelligent design?

Yes, but it is due not only to my religious preference, but also out of logic - the right chemicals, catalysts, materials had to be 'provided' by someone, or something.........

 

[jwu]

Really? You got something I can read on this?

It seems that i was mistaken about the article that i had in mind, it was about the formation of protocells in a test tube, somehow i must have messed this up with RNA.
That's the article that i had in mind:
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

Not RNA, but very impressive nonetheless.