Evolution of information

Some examples of 'new information' which the creationists here deny exist.

information according to werner gitt has 5 levels and it is the higher levels which are normally in definitions of information. infomation being constructed as data with meaning.

just changing a lettar in a worg doesnt nescessarilyy change the meaning of the sentence and in the same way it is not the variation of minor bits of dna that make up life but whole chunks of dna being in tact to create the proteins and enzymes and structures built therewith to create and sustain life that is being objected. if we could see a cascade of meaningful size compared to the size of even biochemical machines then basicly we would have been satisfied. the thing is we want something with an engineering like property of interlocking parts separately coming together to form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. the slip of a base that is not a killer is not really enough to satisyf us. i am ben changed to i am len could be a typo
but will never created i am a hippopotamous alongside a rhinocerous and it is this and several layers more of information that is necessary for the creation of biomachines of the complexity and the varitety means it has to happen alot.

jlerollin said:

information according to werner gitt has 5 levels and it is the higher levels which are normally in definitions of information. infomation being constructed as data with meaning.

just changing a lettar in a worg doesnt nescessarilyy change the meaning of the sentence and in the same way it is not the variation of minor bits of dna that make up life but whole chunks of dna being in tact to create the proteins and enzymes and structures built therewith to create and sustain life that is being objected. if we could see a cascade of meaningful size compared to the size of even biochemical machines then basicly we would have been satisfied. the thing is we want something with an engineering like property of interlocking parts separately coming together to form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. the slip of a base that is not a killer is not really enough to satisyf us. i am ben changed to i am len could be a typo
but will never created i am a hippopotamous alongside a rhinocerous and it is this and several layers more of information that is necessary for the creation of biomachines of the complexity and the varitety means it has to happen alot.

Click to expand...

Was that the sound of shifting goalposts I just heard?

mikeynov said:

Was that the sound of shifting goalposts I just heard?

Click to expand...

No. It was the sound of goalposts running as fast as they could, not shifting.

Tomk80 said:

No. It was the sound of goalposts running as fast as they could, not shifting.

Click to expand...

53Isaiah said:

Are you claiming then that the universe is becoming more complex?

Click to expand...

what I wrote was in English. apologies if this coincidentally has the same grammatical structure as whatever you read, but has an entirely different meaning. I suggest something like altavista to help you, because I am not talking about whatever you are talking about.

shinbits said:

This is variation, not evolution of new information. A new species can't exist if there's no new information.

Click to expand...

hold on. what we start with is a random string of DNA with no function whatsoever, and then after a number of generations, it has biological function. something new is there. new biological function. how is that not new information? This information to do whatever the stretch of DNA does was never there before, but it is now.

Schroeder said:

so if you have gattagt it becomes gataggtt, it has new info. right no it is just a new way to do what it usually did. like mixing to colors. does this make something new. its a different color but nothing new or no new thing was created. i think if gattgat became eheehho that would be something new.

Click to expand...

oh I see, that's most fascinating. you see, gattagt would code for one protein, but gataggtt would code for a completely different protein, with completely different chemical properties, and containing different amino acids, but somehow that is not new information?

Jet Black said:

oh, and can a creationist please explain to me how the development of a new biological function from a random string of DNA is not new information. In other words for the mentally challenged, why is biological function not information?

Click to expand...

because if it was, then they would have to stop denying that new information can evolve, and they don't want to do that.

Jet Black said:

Creationists often claim that new information cannot evolve. But here is an interesting experiment that clearly contradicts that.


Basically what has happened here is that a section of random DNA was introduced into this phage (a virus) which reduced the effectiveness of the virus by six orders of magnitude. This is our starting point now.

Now by randomly selecting ten offspring from each production cycle, and then allowing the best of this ten to reproduce this random sequence of DNA developed a biological function which allowed the infectivity of the virus to increase by a factor of 240.

so what we have here, is a completely random polypeptide sequence developing a functional role in the activity of the organism..

how is that not an increase in information?

Click to expand...

was that function an addition to the dna chain or just a change? if it was eneugh of significant change then that would be evolution... if it wasn't added to the chain then it's more likely to be new info (but not additional info).
Although the question remains was it combined from info that was already previously there or was it info resulting from a mutational error sort of event?

deleted

Blackmarch said:

was that function an addition to the dna chain or just a change? if it was eneugh of significant change then that would be evolution... if it wasn't added to the chain then it's more likely to be new info (but not additional info).
Although the question remains was it combined from info that was already previously there or was it info resulting from a mutational error sort of event?

Click to expand...

Jet is referring to this abstract, where a random sequence evolves a function through evolutionary mechanisms in a virus:

J Mol Evol. 2003 Feb;56(2):162-8.Related Articles, Links

[SIZE=+1]Can an arbitrary sequence evolve towards acquiring a biological function?[/SIZE]

Hayashi Y, Sakata H, Makino Y, Urabe I, Yomo T.

Department of Biotechnology, Graduate School of Engineering, Osaka University, 2-1 Yamada-oka, 565-0871, Suita City, Osaka, Japan.

To explore the possibility that an arbitrary sequence can evolve towards acquiring functional role when fused with other pre-existing protein modules, we replaced the D2 domain of the fd-tet phage genome with the soluble random polypeptide RP3-42. The replacement yielded an fd-RP defective phage that is six-order magnitude lower infectivity than the wild-type fd-tet phage. The evolvability of RP3-42 was investigated through iterative mutation and selection. Each generation consists of a maximum of ten arbitrarily chosen clones, whereby the clone with highest infectivity was selected to be the parent clone of the generation that followed. The experimental evolution attested that, from an initial single random sequence, there will be selectable variation in a property of interest and that the property in question was able to improve over several generations. fd-7, the clone with highest infectivity at the end of the experimental evolution, showed a 240-fold increase in infectivity as compared to its origin, fd-RP. Analysis by phage ELISA using anti-M13 antibody and anti-T7 antibody revealed that about 37-fold increase in the infectivity of fd-7 was attributed to the changes in the molecular property of the single polypeptide that replaced the D2 domain of the g3p protein. This study therefore exemplifies the process of a random polypeptide generating a functional role in rejuvenating the infectivity of a defective bacteriophage when fused to some preexisting protein modules, indicating that an arbitrary sequence can evolve toward acquiring a functional role. Overall, this study could herald the conception of new perspective regarding primordial polypeptides in the field of molecular evolution.

Jet Black said:

oh, and can a creationist please explain to me how the development of a new biological function from a random string of DNA is not new information. In other words for the mentally challenged, why is biological function not information?

Click to expand...

What you've posted isn't anything new. It's the nature of DNA to repair itself.

Ack, the cursed double post!

shinbits said:

What you've posted isn't anything new. It's the nature of DNA to repair itself.

Click to expand...

What you've posted didn't answer the question that you quoted.

In the quote, she wanted to know why it wasn't new information.

DNA has always been able to repair itself. That's not new.

shinbits said:

In the quote, she wanted to know why it wasn't new information.

DNA has always been able to repair itself. That's not new.

Click to expand...

The ability of DNA to repair itself doesn't change the fact that this experiment shows a random sequence developing a functional role. How is this not new information? I don't understand why you think that saying "DNA can repair itself" somehow answers the question.

shinbits said:

In the quote, she wanted to know why it wasn't new information.

DNA has always been able to repair itself. That's not new.

Click to expand...

this is not DNA repairing itself. this is a totally random section of DNA developing a new biological function.

Blackmarch said:

Although the question remains was it combined from info that was already previously there or was it info resulting from a mutational error sort of event?

Click to expand...

the new biological function resulted from mutational changes to the random polypeptide sequence.