Evidence of increased information?

[biggles53]

Nylonase...........

 

[necroforest]

I'm going to go with "OP was a troll who will never return to the thread"

 

[Adinius]

Watch him return in one year!

 

[Spacewyrm]

Oh of course not. I think that enlightenment period fundamentalists are relying to much on unevolutionized religion to try and make truth in modern times with outdated modes of logic, rather than I who tries to utilize modernized logic and science to prove my religion true.

I certainly think that a scientific outlook and religous belief can coexist just fine. But, how do you think you might prove your religion true through "modernized" logic and science? Just curious, since every attempt at such a proof I've seen has been rather unimpressive.

 

[Naraoia]

"Define what you mean by "information" and "complexity""

If you don't know what I'm referring to you cannot answer my question. Don't bother.

The question for me is, do you know what you are referring to?

I am pretty sure you aren't interested in "information" in any formal, mathematical sense.

I'm also convinced that the use of "information" in this context just diverts attention from the real question. The real question, in this case, is whether evolution can account for all kinds of things we observe in the living world - metabolic pathways, organs, adaptations, what have you. There are, IMO, much better concepts than "information" to deal with these questions. If you want to talk about adaptations and novelties and complex interacting parts, you will want to talk about gene duplications, gene regulation, protein interactions, developmental pathways etc. The "information" content of the underlying DNA doesn't matter squat; what matters is how it affects the organism.

As for complexity, it's not that difficult to increase. For example, single-celled algae have been observed to evolve into eight-celled colonies in only a few generations in response to a predator. And digital organisms have been observed to repeatedly evolve an irreducibly complex function under selection (see CF user rjw's excellent summary of the latter study here).

Arguably, any gene duplication followed by divergence of the daughter genes increases complexity, and this happens reasonably frequently.

Evolution doesn't require an increase in information or complexity.

No, evolution in general doesn't, but evolution as an explanation of life as we know it does.

Unless there is a definition of complexity that doesn't regard animals as more complex than bacteria.

 

[Nostromo]

Just thought I'd put it out there that it isn't a requirement in every case.

 

[Naraoia]

Just thought I'd clarify that what you put out there doesn't apply to every case

 

[Split Rock]

As for complexity, it's not that difficult to increase. For example, single-celled algae have been observed to evolve into eight-celled colonies in only a few generations in response to a predator.

A nice example of how the theory of evolution continues to be researched and tested by actual scientists (ones who do not do research in an armchair).

 

[Naraoia]

As for complexity, it's not that difficult to increase. For example, single-celled algae have been observed to evolve into eight-celled colonies in only a few generations in response to a predator.

A nice example of how the theory of evolution continues to be researched and tested by actual scientists (ones who do not do research in an armchair).

To be fair, that's an ancient article.

In the countless years since its publication, creation science may have invalidated the findings for all I know

 

[Split Rock]

As for complexity, it's not that difficult to increase. For example, single-celled algae have been observed to evolve into eight-celled colonies in only a few generations in response to a predator. To be fair, that's an ancient article.

In the countless years since its publication, creation science may have invalidated the findings for all I know

I would hardly call a 1998 paper "ancient." And I will eat my algae if it was ever invalidated by a "creation scientist!"

 

[Shemjaza]

So after a series of polite examples of why an increase in information is trivial... I really hope manifest actually changes his opinion.


http://www.christianforums.com/users/258618/

 

[The Barbarian]

It's easy to show mathematically that any new mutation in a population will increase the amount of information.

There is a mathematically rigorous definition of "information".

But that's not what our creationist friend is looking for. He's using it as a buzzword to sound as though he knows something about it. Hence, his reluctance to define the term.

 

[Smidlee]

So after a series of polite examples of why an increase in information is trivial... I really hope manifest actually changes his opinion.

So far the evidence point toward manifest is just a hit and run poster. He join and left 30 minutes later.

 

[Naraoia]

I would hardly call a 1998 paper "ancient." And I will eat my algae if it was ever invalidated by a "creation scientist!"

Hmm, algae can be quite delicious. Never tried these single-celled ones, though

 

[SLP]

"Define what you mean by "information" and "complexity""

If you don't know what I'm referring to you cannot answer my question. Don't bother.

I think you miss the point.

Creationists often present these 'questions' premised solely on what they've read on some creationist website or in some creationist book.

You already indicated that you cannot understand material presented to you in links, which were relevant to the questions YOU asked.

If you cannot understand the material, why on earth are you 1. asking about it and 2. dismissing someone who simply wanted to see if YOU understand it (which you already said you don't)?

Such hubris...

 

[Maxwell511]

I saw this on here a couple years ago - a proof sketch that the idea of mutation always decreasing information is wrong. It doesn't even require a formal definition of "information".

So, here goes:


Let h(G) denote the information content in genome G. The only requirements on h is that it's objective - it always returns the same number when given the same DNA sequence.

Now, assume that mutation causes information degradation. Let G' (pronounced "g-prime" for non-math people) be the result of a single mutation; for example, if G is the sequence AACTGA, G' could be ACCTGA (one base pair changed).

Now, by assumption, h(G') < h(G). Now, let's consider a specific mutation on G', which we will call G'' (g-double-prime). G'' is the result of a mutation on G' where the base pair changed in the mutation of G is changed back to its original state (which is just as likely as any other mutation). In our example, ACCTGA changes to AACTGA.

By our initial assumption (that the creationists are right), h(G'') < h(G'), and therefore h(G'') < h(G). However, G and G'' are the same. Therefore, h(G) < h(G), which is a contradiction - a number can't be less than itself. Thus, our assumption that information always decreases under mutation is wrong. QED.

This is the best argument I have ever seen against the "no new information" position. Well done. That is seriously brilliant.

 

[Smidlee]

This is the best argument I have ever seen against the "no new information" position. Well done. That is seriously brilliant.

Except G" may not totally reverse back to G. It's claimed human have a vitamin-C pseudogenes so all we have to do it make a few changes in our DNA to once again synthesis C or is our ability of synthesis vitamin C forever lost? I thought I've read something where restoring the DNA (G) back to the original state after a (protein changing) mutation (G') can sometimes be tougher than originally thought.
It's like a living cell= dead cell when it comes to all the parts and their mass yet at the same time dead cell< living cell. Once dead it's a lot tougher to restore back to life.

 

[Naraoia]

Except G" may not totally reverse back to G. It's claimed human have a vitamin-C pseudogenes so all we have to do it make a few changes in our DNA to once again synthesis C or is our ability of synthesis vitamin C forever lost? I thought I've read something where restoring the DNA (G) back to the original state after a (protein changing) mutation (G') can sometimes be tougher than originally thought.
It's like a living cell= dead cell when it comes to all the parts and their mass yet at the same time dead cell< living cell. Once dead it's a lot tougher to restore back to life.

I think that in the case of a single gene, that would depend on how long it's been dead, and how much of its interaction network remains intact. If the gene is the first one from a pathway to die, and it's only been lost recently, IMHO reversing the mutations that killed it should give back most or all of the lost functionality.

 

[Maxwell511]

Except G" may not totally reverse back to G.

The only agrument against necroforest's is can not not may not.