A Seemingly Definitive Refutation of the "No new information" canard

TeddyKGB

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
Jul 18, 2005
6,495
453
46
Deep underground
✟8,993.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Taken largely intact from a clever IIDB member.

The claim: No genetic mutation may increase information.

1. Point mutations are reversible.
2. Suppose a point mutation in gene G at nucleotide N changes a T to an A. Per the claim, this represents a decrease in information.
3. Suppose a point mutation at N changes the A back to a T. Per the claim, this also represents a decrease in information.
4. It follows from premises 3 & 4 that two chemically identical configurations of G have distinct information contents.

It seems almost too neat.
 
Taken largely intact from a clever IIDB member.

The claim: No genetic mutation may increase information.

1. Point mutations are reversible.
2. Suppose a point mutation in gene G at nucleotide N changes a T to an A. Per the claim, this represents a decrease in information.
3. Suppose a point mutation at N changes the A back to a T. Per the claim, this also represents a decrease in information.
4. It follows from premises 3 & 4 that two chemically identical configurations of G have distinct information contents.

It seems almost too neat.

Does this mean creationism is true?
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Taken largely intact from a clever IIDB member.

The claim: No genetic mutation may increase information.

1. Point mutations are reversible.
2. Suppose a point mutation in gene G at nucleotide N changes a T to an A. Per the claim, this represents a decrease in information.
3. Suppose a point mutation at N changes the A back to a T. Per the claim, this also represents a decrease in information.
4. It follows from premises 3 & 4 that two chemically identical configurations of G have distinct information contents.

It seems almost too neat.

To end the proof you should state that this is a contradiction. - Which it is. I have used this argument in the past, but creationists don't seem to get it.
Nonetheless it is sound - the premises are correct, the conclusion states that I(G) > I(G) where I is some information counting function, but the output of that function can only be a number, and for any number, "a > a" is false.

Thus the argument is valid and sound, providing a reductio ad absurdum disproof of the claim, "mutations can never increase information."
 
Upvote 0

LordTimothytheWise

Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Nov 8, 2007
750
27
✟8,542.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
But a monkey is still a monkey :p

ha ha.

Isn't information always in reference to something else though? Anti-biotic resistance qualifies as new information right?

Sure its through sort of directed hypermutation, but the mutations themselves were still random.

I think co-dependent information would be a better argument. I absolutely cannot comprehend why anyone would say "no new information".
 
Upvote 0

flatworm

Veteran
Dec 13, 2006
1,394
153
✟9,922.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Isn't information always in reference to something else though?

The beauty of this example is that it doesn't rely on any particular definition of information. It holds as long as there is some measure for the information content of a genome.

Let G be a genome and I(G) the information content of that genome.

Let G' be a genome produced from G via a single nucleotide substitution.

Evolution deniers assert that I(G) >= I(G'), for all G, G' in the real world.

Unfortunately for them, the same mutation that made G' out of G is known to occur in reverse, making G out of G'.

Since this latter is also a mutation, evolution deniers claim then that I(G') >= I(G), for all G, G'.

The only way this can be true is if I(G) = I(G'), for all G,G', which by extension means there is never any difference in information content for genomes of the same length, something so ridiculous they could never sell it even to their scientifically and mathematically illiterate support base.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nathan45

Guest
But a monkey is still a monkey :p

ha ha.

Isn't information always in reference to something else though? Anti-biotic resistance qualifies as new information right?

Sure its through sort of directed hypermutation, but the mutations themselves were still random.

I think co-dependent information would be a better argument. I absolutely cannot comprehend why anyone would say "no new information".
well the thing is there's two factors in evolution:

First you have random mutations, which are just that, random.

Then you have Natural selection, which is a non-random process that determines which organisms are fit based on their environment. This process determines which of the above random mutations are "fit" and which arn't.

So which mutations are selected is non-random dependent on the environment.

But which mutations happen in the first place is random. So no, new information is not always in reference to something else. But the mutations that survive the filter of natural selection often are.
 
Upvote 0

necroforest

Regular Member
Jul 29, 2007
446
47
Washington DC
✟15,839.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Green
You can get around this by changing "mutations always decrease information content" to "mutations don't increase information content" (you essentially change I(G) > I(G') to I(G) >= I(G') ), but that will logically imply that "all genomes have the SAME information content", which makes talking about information content meaningless. ^_^

This looks pretty airtight, I wonder what huggybear and his ilk will have to say to this (if they bother responding...)
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Taken largely intact from a clever IIDB member.

The claim: No genetic mutation may increase information.

1. Point mutations are reversible.
2. Suppose a point mutation in gene G at nucleotide N changes a T to an A. Per the claim, this represents a decrease in information.
3. Suppose a point mutation at N changes the A back to a T. Per the claim, this also represents a decrease in information.
4. It follows from premises 3 & 4 that two chemically identical configurations of G have distinct information contents.

It seems almost too neat.

There is a hole. You did not explain where the original information in G came from.

Lee Spetner (if memory serves) conceded that back mutations produce new information, but he also stated that there was no net gain of information if one includes the original gene in the equation.

There is a much better example that covers most of the bases. IDers have argued that genetic information is front loaded into the genome. Therefore, if a new function emerges they will claim that mutations are only unlocking the information that was already there. They can also claim that these are just back mutations so no net information was gained.

To get around this one can start with a purely random sequence produced in the lab and insert it into a genome. If this purely random sequence produces function then all of their arguments are out the window. This experiment has been done.

J Mol Evol. 2003 Feb;56(2):162-8.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00239-002-2389-y Links

Can an arbitrary sequence evolve towards acquiring a biological function?

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.

In this study the random sequence mutated and resulted in a virus that was more infectious than the wild type virus. Not only that, but the mutations in the random sequence were vital for the increased infectivity which is a great example of evolution producing an irreducibly complex system.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
To get around this one can start with a purely random sequence produced in the lab and insert it into a genome. If this purely random sequence produces function then all of their arguments are out the window. This experiment has been done.



In this study the random sequence mutated and resulted in a virus that was more infectious than the wild type virus. Not only that, but the mutations in the random sequence were vital for the increased infectivity which is a great example of evolution producing an irreducibly complex system.
Total wowz. :eek:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BrainHertz

Senior Member
Nov 5, 2007
564
28
Oregon
✟8,340.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Here's another refutation, based on examining the commonly accepted definition of information. The one I refer to is that proposed by Claude Shannon in 1948, and used in the design of communication systems. I don't know of a different definition, but I'm open to alternative proposals.

Start here.

Claude Shannon said:
We now consider the information source. How is an information source to be described mathematically,
and how much information in bits per second is produced in a given source?

Claude Shannon said:
We can think of a discrete source as generating the message, symbol by symbol. It will choose successive
symbols according to certain probabilities depending, in general, on preceding choices as well as the
particular symbols in question. A physical system, or a mathematical model of a system which produces
such a sequence of symbols governed by a set of probabilities, is known as a stochastic process.

Shorter version: an information source is a system which produces symbols according to a stochastic process. In other words, randomness is fundamental to the generation of information.

This part is quite important; it isn't at all surprising that random genetic mutations add information to the genome. Such addition of information is precisely what the 1948 paper which founded information theory predicts.

I can add much more to this if anybody is interested.
 
Upvote 0

Wesley B Coleman

New Member
Jul 2, 2020
3
0
24
Springfield, OR
✟8,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Taken largely intact from a clever IIDB member.

The claim: No genetic mutation may increase information.

1. Point mutations are reversible.
2. Suppose a point mutation in gene G at nucleotide N changes a T to an A. Per the claim, this represents a decrease in information.
3. Suppose a point mutation at N changes the A back to a T. Per the claim, this also represents a decrease in information.
4. It follows from premises 3 & 4 that two chemically identical configurations of G have distinct information contents.

It seems almost too neat.

Duplications and mutations do not add new information to the genome, though. Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information (whether original or duplicated). Neither of them adds new information.

Think about it this way: if I give someone a copy of a book they already own, then they don’t have any new information, just a copy of information they already had. If I subsequently take a marker and mark out some of the letters or words in the copy of the book I gave them, they still don’t have any new information—just a messed up copy of one of the books.

Your idea is that I give them a copy of the book that also subsequently has added letters or words in it. That, unfortunately for an atheist, is never seen in nature. In short, duplications/mutations have never been observed to add new information. You can speculate all you want.
 
Upvote 0

Wesley B Coleman

New Member
Jul 2, 2020
3
0
24
Springfield, OR
✟8,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
That's a twelve-year-old thread you just necro'd. Bad form.

Also, several posts in that old thread actually debunk your new post. Worse form.

Ok. I was more curious than anything else, as to your explanation of point mutation. Can you please show me what post debunks this concept I shared? Thanks!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
As we speak, I'm looking through articles on NCBI (I have been since yesterday morning) and I can't seem to find any articles that have tested and found added genetic information. Maybe, you could site a source?

Try searching for the terms 'De Novo' 'Orphan', 'Novel' or 'Novelty' + 'Information' on NCBI.

Here's an example:

A Continuum of Evolving De Novo Genes Drives Protein-Coding Novelty in Drosophila

Scientific papers use technical language that may be divorced from every day word usages, as they need precision to communicate their information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
... Your idea is that I give them a copy of the book that also subsequently has added letters or words in it. That, unfortunately for an atheist, is never seen in nature.
Mutations can affect the behaviours of regulatory networks and new functions can then emerge. Those functions are notoriously difficult to predict.

A change in the sequence of a specific gene, can have a cascading influence on the interactions between it and what you're introducing above, under the seemingly innocuous term: 'nature'.

When it comes to the functional evolution of new species, one cannot simply exclude the influence of changes in informational interchanges between a functioning, 'active' gene and an ever changing environment.

In physics, whilst it may be so that the net information in any defined (isolated) system only ever changes form and is neither created nor destroyed, what constitutes the 'defined system', does change.

Wesley B Coleman said:
In short, duplications/mutations have never been observed to add new information. You can speculate all you want.
A functional, active gene is not a copy of a book.
(Mind you, no two readers will necessarily read the information in a book in exactly the same way, either).
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Duplications and mutations do not add new information to the genome, though. Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information (whether original or duplicated). Neither of them adds new information.

Think about it this way: if I give someone a copy of a book they already own, then they don’t have any new information, just a copy of information they already had. If I subsequently take a marker and mark out some of the letters or words in the copy of the book I gave them, they still don’t have any new information—just a messed up copy of one of the books.

Your idea is that I give them a copy of the book that also subsequently has added letters or words in it. That, unfortunately for an atheist, is never seen in nature. In short, duplications/mutations have never been observed to add new information. You can speculate all you want.
Before anyone can respond you need to define your version of "information".

Do you have a definition of information?
Can information be objectively measured?
If so, what unit do you use?

Because in any definition I've seen, changing the content of a message changes the message and provides different, and thus new, information.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums