Evidence of increased information?

[manifest]

I've been asking evolutionists to provide evidence for evolution in the form of a scientific observation of an increase in complexity in the genome of any living organism through time which is beneficial to this organism.

I have been given two links here as answers. The person giving me the first link has admitted not to have read it themselves but claims generally to know the topic. The person giving me the second link has claimed to have read the entire article which is also scientific. There are many things in them which I do not understand myself.

The first one, you can scroll down to the results section not far from the top under which the comparison of earlier forms to later one is apparently shown. I cannot post links you can look up on Google searching the following:
Laterally transferred elements and high pressure adaptation in Photobacterium profundum strains

The second one, you can scroll down to the diagrams showing them. I cannot post links you can Google it searching the following:
Genome Comparison of a Nonpathogenic Myxoma Virus Field Strain with Its Ancestor, the Virulent Lausanne Strain

Now again, I wonder if these articles - which I have some difficulty understanding due to their technicality - show two things.

1- new information in the genome due to mutations
2- this new information to be actually beneficial

Hoping some here may understand these better than I do and provide input on the matter.

Thanks in advance

 

[necroforest]

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

 

[manifest]

"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.

 

[laconicstudent]

I've been asking evolutionists to provide evidence for evolution in the form of a scientific observation of an increase in complexity in the genome of any living organism through time which is beneficial to this organism.

I have been given two links here as answers. The person giving me the first link has admitted not to have read it themselves but claims generally to know the topic. The person giving me the second link has claimed to have read the entire article which is also scientific. There are many things in them which I do not understand myself.

The first one, you can scroll down to the results section not far from the top under which the comparison of earlier forms to later one is apparently shown. I cannot post links you can look up on Google searching the following:
Laterally transferred elements and high pressure adaptation in Photobacterium profundum strains

The second one, you can scroll down to the diagrams showing them. I cannot post links you can Google it searching the following:
Genome Comparison of a Nonpathogenic Myxoma Virus Field Strain with Its Ancestor, the Virulent Lausanne Strain

Now again, I wonder if these articles - which I have some difficulty understanding due to their technicality - show two things.

1- new information in the genome due to mutations
2- this new information to be actually beneficial

Hoping some here may understand these better than I do and provide input on the matter.

Thanks in advance

Oh. The two studies you mention both detail how in two cases, mutations lead to the development of a highly advantageous trait.

 

[necroforest]

"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.

Nice cop out.

 

[Orogeny]

Manifest: The definition of 'information' is vital to our ability to answer your question. There are multiple definitions of this word, and often, people skeptical of evolution demand that an increase in 'information' be shown, without defining what information is. Please define the word, so that the question can be addressed in the way that you would like.

 

[firechild_82]

If information is defined as an increase in the number of alleles then insertions and duplications would be increases in information.

The problem is creationists refuse to give a specific definition of information so that any evidence for increases in information can be disregarded as not fitting the (non-existent) definition.

 

[necroforest]

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.

 

[Willtor]

I've been asking evolutionists to provide evidence for evolution in the form of a scientific observation of an increase in complexity in the genome of any living organism through time which is beneficial to this organism.

I have been given two links here as answers. The person giving me the first link has admitted not to have read it themselves but claims generally to know the topic. The person giving me the second link has claimed to have read the entire article which is also scientific. There are many things in them which I do not understand myself.

The first one, you can scroll down to the results section not far from the top under which the comparison of earlier forms to later one is apparently shown. I cannot post links you can look up on Google searching the following:
Laterally transferred elements and high pressure adaptation in Photobacterium profundum strains

The second one, you can scroll down to the diagrams showing them. I cannot post links you can Google it searching the following:
Genome Comparison of a Nonpathogenic Myxoma Virus Field Strain with Its Ancestor, the Virulent Lausanne Strain

Now again, I wonder if these articles - which I have some difficulty understanding due to their technicality - show two things.

1- new information in the genome due to mutations
2- this new information to be actually beneficial

Hoping some here may understand these better than I do and provide input on the matter.

Thanks in advance

Unfortunately, the question of "increasing information through randomness" is a misunderstanding on the part of creationist organizations. The word "information" has a popular general use by the public, and something quite specific to mathematicians. The creationist organizations have heard that information cannot increase through random processes and their natural inclination is to assume that information theorists mean by "information" what they mean. But it isn't. The popular notion is not easily compared with the mathematical one.

The reason you are being asked "what is information" is precisely because some of the posters, here, know all this, and know that however you define "information" with respect to the genome, they can demonstrate it increasing.

 

[Nostromo]

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

 

[sbvera13]

"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.

Creationists frequently equivocate "information" with "meaning."

Allow me to give a few simple examples.

The sequence C - A - T contains how much information? To a computer, it is 3 bytes. To a english-speaking human, it has additional meaning, representing a certain kind of animal.

The sequence K - L - Z - X has 4 bytes. To a computer, an increase in information. To a human, it is a reduction in meaning; it's a nonsense word.

Now, lets take a common gene mutation, the duplication event, and apply it to the first example. This gives us C - A - T - C - A - T. 6 bytes, a definitive increase. But to a human, is there more meaning? It's simply the same thing over again, surely that doesn't give some new kind of special message! Not so fast; it can be an increase in meaning, and it's easy to prove. For example, "Go count the number of times CAT is spelled in my example sequence. That's the number of dollars I will give you for a cup of coffee."

And so, even a simple duplication can be definitively proven to increase both information and meaning. No matter what definition you use, both of these things can be observed in genes. Therefore, evolution can and often does create an increase in information.

 

[Nostromo]

Is it worth mentioning that there's a difference between information and data?

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Is it worth mentioning that there's a difference between information and data?

Probably, considering it seems to be a pretty common misconception to confuse the two.

 

[Adinius]

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.

I really liked this explanation. One problem I have, which is more mathematical logical really than pure loical, is the use of the word mutation. I see how the h(G') is a mutuation off of h(G), but if you mutuate h(G') back where h(G)=h(G'') then is this really a same mutation.

Consider it this way

Start off h(G)

You say it mutates and we get h(G'). Then that mutates back to the original and we get h(G''). You assert now that h(G'')<h(G)

however, if we assume h(G')=h(G)-1 (so as to show it is not h(G) then h(G'')=h(G')+1. substitue h(G')=h(G)-1 then h(G'')=h(G)+1-1. then h(G'')=h(G).

Now your logic makes sense, but seems mathematically problematic. This assertion that h(G'')<h(G) is derived from a logical conclusion, but that is because you are basing it all off of different origins. basing h(G') off of origin h(G) and h(G'') off of origin h(G'). Thus the comparative analysis is faulty because of different originating factors. In this instance, no improvement from the origin was made, we just returned to the origin and did not mutate positively.

 

[firechild_82]

I really liked this explanation. One problem I have, which is more mathematical logical really than pure loical, is the use of the word mutation. I see how the h(G') is a mutuation off of h(G), but if you mutuate h(G') back where h(G)=h(G'') then is this really a same mutation.

However, creationists consider this first mutation a loss of information. Had the gene originally been h(G') then mutated to h(G) then it must follow that this is an increase in information.

however, if we assume h(G')=h(G)-1 (so as to show it is not h(G) then h(G'')=h(G')+1. substitue h(G')=h(G)-1 then h(G'')=h(G)+1-1. then h(G'')=h(G).

If h(G')=h(G)-1, then h(G'')=h(G')-1, not h(G'')=h(G')+1 as you have stated. In this case your logic falls. h(G'')=h(G)-2 therefore h(G'')<h(G). If you arbitrarily add and subtract 1 like you have done then you are not really showing anything.

Now your logic makes sense, but seems mathematically problematic. This assertion that h(G'')<h(G) is derived from a logical conclusion, but that is because you are basing it all off of different origins. basing h(G') off of origin h(G) and h(G'') off of origin h(G'). Thus the comparative analysis is faulty because of different originating factors. In this instance, no improvement from the origin was made, we just returned to the origin and did not mutate positively.

But we are working off the creationist assumption that mutation always leads to a loss of information. We can use this assumption to disprove itself.

 

[necroforest]

I really liked this explanation. (snip)

This is an example of a "proof by contradiction" - we assume the statement we want to show true is not true, then show that that leads to something that is obviously untrue (h(G) < h(G)) - this means that our original assumption is false, and shows the thing we want to show is true.

Your issue was with G' mutating to G'' - think of it this way. If G is
ACT, lets suppose G' is ACC. Now, G' could mutate any number of ways, but one of those ways is it mutating to ACT. The creationist claim is that each of the steps in:
ACT -> ACC -> ACT
is a loss of information, which means that h(ACT) < h(ACT), which is obviously not true.

If there's something you don't understand (or still have issue with), I'll try and explain it.

 

[Adinius]

I understand it, and I see where my flaw comes in. I see this basically as a Christian argument against evolution. I suppose we could refer to my theological/scientific beliefs that have been expressed on the big bang forum that they can coexist.

 

[firechild_82]

I understand it, and I see where my flaw comes in. I see this basically as a Christian argument against evolution. I suppose we could refer to my theological/scientific beliefs that have been expressed on the big bang forum that they can coexist.

Certainly. I am guessing you also do not subscribe to the idea that mutations necessarily lead to a loss of "information"? The obvious difference between fundamentalists and most other christians is that the former are willing to find any radical reason why science may be wrong or at least incomplete to justify to themselves why they are right to believe what they do.

 

[mpok1519]

I don't think the whole "benefitial info/quantificating complexity" issue
is even a real issue.

 

[Adinius]

Certainly. I am guessing you also do not subscribe to the idea that mutations necessarily lead to a loss of "information"? The obvious difference between fundamentalists and most other christians is that the former are willing to find any radical reason why science may be wrong or at least incomplete to justify to themselves why they are right to believe what they do.

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.