Dna

[BenSchumer]

If DNA can mutate randomly, which it does because it's not a completely stable molecule, why can't it become more complex?

 

[Grengor]

It can't? I was under the impression from all the current examples of "new information", that it could.

 

[BenSchumer]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Grengor]

Well, you shouldn't just take my word for it, do some research.

 

[Mistermystery]

Most compact thread of the month award.

 

[Grengor]

If only more questions were answeres in such a neat fashion.

 

[knightlight72]

Assuming you mean DNA becoming more complex is the same thing as adding new information that is not previously available, or in existence, then is there actual evidence for this, or just theories?

If it's just in theories, then the answer to the original question can only be theorized. If there is evidence, it's a moot point, since there is verifible proof of DNA creating new information that never existed in itself before.

My understanding is that currently, this is only in theory to exist.

 

[RoboMastodon]

Assuming you mean DNA becoming more complex is the same thing as adding new information that is not previously available, or in existence, then is there actual evidence for this, or just theories?

If it's just in theories, then the answer to the original question can only be theorized. If there is evidence, it's a moot point, since there is verifible proof of DNA creating new information that never existed in itself before.

My understanding is that currently, this is only in theory to exist.

I think there needs to be a sticky that clearly defines the scientific definition of a "theory".

 

[knightlight72]

Is there more than one meaning of theory? I was under the impression it is a scientific idea based on what is believed to happen. Meaning it is something that can be conjectured, but not proven as verfied fact.

What view do you have for it?

 

[RoboMastodon]

Is there more than one meaning of theory? I was under the impression it is a scientific idea based on what is believed to happen. Meaning it is something that can be conjectured, but not proven as verfied fact.

What view do you have for it?

A scientific theory is a collection of facts and the explanation for them. Theories are as good as it gets in science.
Types of DNA mutation:
-Point Mutation
-Insertion
-Duplication
-Amplification
-Deletion

All have been observed, some increase the size of the genome, some decrease it, some make it stay the same.

 

[Nymphalidae]

I don't like these information discussions because nobody ever seems to understand things properly. It doesn't necessarily matter whether a mutation adds, subtracts, or just switches base pairs around. What matters is whether or not the mutation changes the information contained in that particular sequence. And by changing the information I mean that the mutation in the DNA causes a corresponding change in the protein sequence. Thus, a subtraction of base pairs can create new information just as easily as an addition of base pairs. Now will Creationists please stop with the stupid "no new info" argument?

 

[knightlight72]

Just to be clear, it looks as if you said theories can be facts, or can contain facts.

I want to be sure what is being said. Are you saying a theory is a fact? Or are you saying a theory is something that is based on various things, including possible facts?

You might be saying other things, but I think the above question will break it down a little more quickly.

But on to DNA mutations. I think the point in question was the DNA becoming more complex. Not just a mutation that results in a different order of the available information, but actual more complexity, and more information than was available from before.

 

[RoboMastodon]

Just to be clear, it looks as if you said theories can be facts, or can contain facts.

I want to be sure what is being said. Are you saying a theory is a fact? Or are you saying a theory is something that is based on various things, including possible facts?

You might be saying other things, but I think the above question will break it down a little more quickly.

But on to DNA mutations. I think the point in question was the DNA becoming more complex. Not just a mutation that results in a different order of the available information, but actual more complexity, and more information than was available from before.

Theories are usually composed of facts, and the explanation for their veracity. Examples:
-Theory of Evolution
-General Theory of Relativity
-Atomic Theory
-Germ Theory

From wikipedia

In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it
1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

On mutations: define "more complex" and "more information".

 

[Hydra009]

Is there more than one meaning of theory? I was under the impression it is a scientific idea based on what is believed to happen. Meaning it is something that can be conjectured, but not proven as verfied fact.

This particular misconception is frequent and frequently taxing, so please do people a favor a read a little about what exactly a scientific theory is, then we can discuss it in further detail.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and
5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, evolution, etc.

 

[RoboMastodon]

^^^ I believe you are beaten, good sir.

 

[Hydra009]

^^ Yeah, a little bit of overlap. But it can't be stressed enough.

 

[Nymphalidae]

But on to DNA mutations. I think the point in question was the DNA becoming more complex. Not just a mutation that results in a different order of the available information, but actual more complexity, and more information than was available from before.

I don't know what you want from me. First demonstrate for me that you know what DNA is and how it works, then I will know at what level to address this.

 

[knightlight72]

It seems we are discussing defintions more than points. I'll guess I'll be more straight forward, to help speed things up from my side. I'll start with Robomastodon. I made the statement that DNA complexity increasing was only theorized. To which you responded that the term theory should be defined. I wrote a brief use of the term, and asked for your defintion. To which you added DNA mutations. Your term included a theory as a collection of facts, with their explanation. I asked more clearly if you were stating that a theory is specifically a fact, or merely based on possible facts. To which you responded that it usually are composed of facts.

Hydra009 followed in next with more about theories and the definition. I'm not really concerned about definitions of theories. As I so far, to which questions were used, we haven't strayed from the subject in our use of the term theory. (since we are still talking about DNA growing in complexity through mutation)

Nymphalidae, I really don't have anything for you. I know the order of the posts seem as if I was responding partially to you, but the entire post just took me time to respond to robomastodon's post, and you managed to post before I did. So no worries there.

I think where I am right now, was at the point of stating a simple point, and then others wanted my definitions used to explain what i was earlier saying.

So back to the beginning.

Assuming you mean DNA becoming more complex is the same thing as adding new information that is not previously available, or in existence, then is there actual evidence for this, or just theories?

If it's just in theories, then the answer to the original question can only be theorized. If there is evidence, it's a moot point, since there is verifible proof of DNA creating new information that never existed in itself before.

My understanding is that currently, this is only in theory to exist.

And now my new statement with included defintions.

Assuming you mean DNA becoming more complex is the same thing as adding new information that is not previously available, or in existence, then is there actual evidence for this, or just theories? Theory meaning no actual evidence, but just conjectured.

If it's just in conjectured theories, then the answer to the original question can only be conjectured. If there is evidence, it's a moot point, since there is verifible proof of DNA creating new information that never existed in itself before.

My understanding is that currently, this is only in conjectured theory to exist.


Hopefully, this will help with the definitions asked for earlier, matching to my statement I made.

 

[RoboMastodon]

It seems we are discussing defintions more than points. I'll guess I'll be more straight forward, to help speed things up from my side. I'll start with Robomastodon. I made the statement that DNA complexity increasing was only theorized. To which you responded that the term theory should be defined. I wrote a brief use of the term, and asked for your defintion. To which you added DNA mutations. Your term included a theory as a collection of facts, with their explanation. I asked more clearly if you were stating that a theory is specifically a fact, or merely based on possible facts. To which you responded that it usually are composed of facts.

Hydra009 followed in next with more about theories and the definition. I'm not really concerned about definitions of theories. As I so far, to which questions were used, we haven't strayed from the subject in our use of the term theory. (since we are still talking about DNA growing in complexity through mutation)

Nymphalidae, I really don't have anything for you. I know the order of the posts seem as if I was responding partially to you, but the entire post just took me time to respond to robomastodon's post, and you managed to post before I did. So no worries there.

I think where I am right now, was at the point of stating a simple point, and then others wanted my definitions used to explain what i was earlier saying.

So back to the beginning.

And now my new statement with included defintions.

Assuming you mean DNA becoming more complex is the same thing as adding new information that is not previously available, or in existence, then is there actual evidence for this, or just theories? Theory meaning no actual evidence, but just conjectured.

If it's just in conjectured theories, then the answer to the original question can only be conjectured. If there is evidence, it's a moot point, since there is verifible proof of DNA creating new information that never existed in itself before.

My understanding is that currently, this is only in conjectured theory to exist.


Hopefully, this will help with the definitions asked for earlier, matching to my statement I made.

Here you go:

* Small-scale mutations affecting one or a few nucleotides, including:
o Point mutations, often caused by chemicals or malfunction of DNA replication, exchange a single nucleotide for another. Most common is the transition that exchanges a purine for a purine or a pyrimidine for a pyrimidine (A ↔ G, C ↔ T). A transition can be caused by nitrous acid, base mispairing, or mutagenic base analogs such as 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU). Less common is a transversion, which exchanges a purine for a pyrimidine or a pyrimidine for a purine (C/T ↔ A/G). A point mutation can be reversed by another point mutation, in which the nucleotide is changed back to its original state (true reversion) or by second-site reversion (a complementary mutation elsewhere that results in regained gene functionality). There are three kinds of point mutations, depending upon what the erroneous codon codes for:
+ silent mutations: codes for the same amino acid, so has no effect
+ missense mutations: codes for a different amino acid
+ nonsense mutations: codes for a stop, which can truncate the protein
o Insertions add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA. They are usually caused by transposable elements, or errors during replication of repeating elements (e.g. AT repeats). Most insertions in a gene can cause a shift in the reading frame (frameshift) or alter splicing of the mRNA, both of which can significantly alter the gene product. Insertions can be reverted by excision of the transposable element.
o Deletions remove one or more nucleotides from the DNA. Like insertions, these mutations can alter the reading frame of the gene. They are irreversible.

* Large-scale mutations in chromosomal structure, including:
o Amplifications (or gene duplications) leading to multiple copies of chromosomal regions, increasing the dosage of the genes located within them.
o Deletions of large chromosomal regions, leading to loss of the genes within those regions.
o Mutations whose effect is to juxtapose previously separate pieces of DNA, potentially bringing together separate genes to form functionally distinct fusion genes (e.g. bcr-abl). These include:
+ Chromosomal translocations: attaching DNA from separate chromosomes.
+ Interstitial deletions: removing regions of DNA from a single chromosome, thereby apposing previously distant genes (e.g. fig-ros).
+ Chromosomal inversions: switching the orientation of a segment of a chromosome, thereby apposing its ends to previously distant genes.
o Loss of heterozygosity: loss of one allele, either by a deletion or recombination event, in organisms which previously had two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations

All of these types of mutations have names because they can all be observed and given that reasonable definition of "information" is being used, at least a few can be said to add information to the gene. Again, you haven't defined information so I can't specifically say which one.

 

[knightlight72]

Considering context, that we are looking for new information that is making the DNA more complex, and also considering context that the information did not already exist in itself.

So, complexity increasing was the part we were looking for, not just mutations.