Dna

[RoboMastodon]

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.

Again, you're going to have to define "information" and complexity in order to answer this question. Mutations add information to the gene the same way that taking the sentence:
"I like dogs."
and doing several changes to it.
"I like dogs." -> deletion -> "I dogs" ->insertion->"I am dogs"->translocation->"I am gods"->deletion->"I am god".
Now, by any reasonable definition of "information" at least one of these steps added information to the sentence. All of these steps have analogues in terms of mutations.

Mutations add information, unless you can come up with a reason why they wouldn't.

Edit - what do you think would add information if it wasn't mutations?

 

[knightlight72]

Adding information to make it more complex. I'm not referring to mutation in the sense that a fly is still a fly. I'm looking for mutation that is making the lifeform more complex.

A mutation of a man with 4 fingers and 2 thumbs is indeed more information. The ability to have a thumb was already currently available however.

Another example, a dog can have numerous variations in DNA, but it is not more complex despite the size changes, or hair length, or color.

To be clear, copied information is not new information in the use of my words. I am referring to the changes of DNA into a more complex DNA. That was the original point, and where I take the initial direction still.

 

[RoboMastodon]

Adding information to make it more complex. I'm not referring to mutation in the sense that a fly is still a fly. I'm looking for mutation that is making the lifeform more complex.

A mutation of a man with 4 fingers and 2 thumbs is indeed more information. The ability to have a thumb was already currently available however.

Another example, a dog can have numerous variations in DNA, but it is not more complex despite the size changes, or hair length, or color.

To be clear, copied information is not new information in the use of my words. I am referring to the changes of DNA into a more complex DNA. That was the original point, and where I take the initial direction still.

DEFINE "INFORMATION" AND "COMPLEXITY" PLEASE.

Also, Speciation has been observed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I have personally met people with 12 fingers.

 

[Hydra009]

Hydra009 followed in next with more about theories and the definition. I'm not really concerned about definitions of theories.

Which is why you confused "conjectured, but not proven as verfied fact" with "scientific theory" in the first place. The reason why these things are so painstakingly defined is so that people can know what they actually mean.

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.

There it is again. And not even a visible attempt to figure out the mistake.

Reminds me of this conversation:

"2 + 2 = 7"
"No it doesn't. Here, check it out the math book."
"I'm not really concerned with math here. Now, since we know that 2 +2 = 7..."

 

[Jet Black]

It seems we are discussing defintions more than points.

definitions however are critical. for example the sicnetific and vernacular definitions of theor are different. the vernacular definition is closer to the scientific term "hypothesis"

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.

we need e definition here (fun isn't it?) what is information in the DNA?

 

[knightlight72]

Thanks for trring mastodon. But I accept this isn't worth it anymore. I thought I was being clear enough, but I guess not. (Incidently, I has a cousin with 11 fingers)

Hydra009, actually I didn't confuse the terms. I chose that phrase to be clear on what my point was. I'm stating that the evidence did not exist. That currently, the theory on this is conjectured.

jet black, defintions are important, but it took over the original point of the thread. It became a definition thread on theory. I didn't even care about the term, it was only brought ot clear up what the point of the statements being said were about.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Adding information to make it more complex. I'm not referring to mutation in the sense that a fly is still a fly. I'm looking for mutation that is making the lifeform more complex.

"A fly is still a fly" is not a legitimate criticism because there is no objective scientific category such as "fly." Is a fly without wings still a fly? Because there are genetic mutant flies without wings.

A mutation of a man with 4 fingers and 2 thumbs is indeed more information. The ability to have a thumb was already currently available however.

What do you mean by "ability"? If an additional thumb requires a mutation, then there was no "ability" to have a second thumb in the original genome.

Another example, a dog can have numerous variations in DNA, but it is not more complex despite the size changes, or hair length, or color.

What if one or more of these changes is the result of an increase in the amount of DNA base pairs?

To be clear, copied information is not new information in the use of my words. I am referring to the changes of DNA into a more complex DNA. That was the original point, and where I take the initial direction still.

If all you want is a physical increase in DNA, the Wikipedia article should suffice.

 

[Jet Black]

jet black, defintions are important, but it took over the original point of the thread. It became a definition thread on theory. I didn't even care about the term, it was only brought ot clear up what the point of the statements being said were about.

fair enough. so back to my other question, what is information in the DNA?

 

[gluadys]

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.

How can DNA become more complex? Do you understand the structure of DNA and the role of the base nucleotides?

The structure of a DNA molecule is already complex, but for genetic purposes, everything hinges on the base nucleotides. How can these become more complex? How can their arrangement become more complex?

Do you understand the transcription of base nucleotides into a program for assembling amino acids into a protein?

How can it become more complex?

Have you taken a look at the DNA or RNA correlation of base nucleotide triplets and amino acids?

This correlation essentially sets the "dictionary" of DNA/RNA language at a maximum of 64 3-base sequences which correspond to 20 amino acids (with considerable redundancy)

How can this become more complex?

 

[knightlight72]

Interestign responses all. But I didn't realize I was so vague. I'm really not trying to break down the definiton of so many terms.

Teddy, not my point. They were examples of my point.

Jet, sorry, but I'm not in a discussion of DNA, I'm in one about evidence for how DNA becomes more complex.

Gluadys, I think my earlier posts may have been missed. If you want to go over them, feel free. If not, well, I'm not exactly thinking this time has been all that fruitful. Defintions have been more discussed than any points so far.

 

[gluadys]

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.

What does increased complexity look like in DNA? How would you identify a more complex DNA sequence from a less complex one?

Are you sure you are even talking about more complex DNA? Maybe what you are really talking about is an impact of a new DNA arrangement that creates a more complex morphology. I have difficutly seeing DNA in any possible arrangement as being more complex in and of itself.

The same difficulty arises with mutations. Mutations are differences in the sequence of base nucleotides. Since the base nucleotides are the carriers of information in DNA, any change in information is, by definition, a mutation. Because any change in information will require a re-ordering of the base nucleotides.

 

[gluadys]

To be clear, copied information is not new information in the use of my words. I am referring to the changes of DNA into a more complex DNA. That was the original point, and where I take the initial direction still.

So what you are looking for is an imperfect copy of the original DNA sequence, one in which the order of base nucleotides has changed in some way. Such changes are called mutations.

But in what way do changes such as duplications, deletions, insertions, substitutions, transpositions, etc. make DNA more complex?

As far as I can see, all of these changes create new information, but I cannot see how the DNA itself becomes more complex.

I think you are confusing DNA sequences with the impact changing sequences may have on an organism.

 

[Elduran]

Jet, sorry, but I'm not in a discussion of DNA, I'm in one about evidence for how DNA becomes more complex.

How can you have a discussion on how DNA becomes more "complex" without discussing DNA itself?

In any case, the questions put to you are very relevant as you need to have a good understanding of the nature of DNA before you can start talking about mutation. As such, it is perfectly acceptable for Jet Black to ask you how you define both "information" and "complexity" since neither of these are standard terms with SI units. Otherwise asking for evidence on an undefined concept is utterly meaningless.

 

[ForeRunner]

Perhaps an analogy using english letters would help us understand. Which sequence of letters is more complex and why?

1. "vlklknpcikpaoumbfwqefnmgjlp"

2. "cat"

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys, I think my earlier posts may have been missed. If you want to go over them, feel free. If not, well, I'm not exactly thinking this time has been all that fruitful. Defintions have been more discussed than any points so far.

I went over all of them twice before I responded. That's why I avoided the definition aspect and have asked you about the actual physical basis of complexity in DNA. I think, perhaps that you are not too clear on how DNA carries information. If you are going to speak of new information and increased complexity in DNA, you need to show how it physically changes the DNA, and how you are able to relate these changes to new information and increased complexity.

Otherwise you are only playing around with abstract, immeasurable concepts that have no empirical basis.

 

[cerad]

Instead of getting hung up on DNA getting more "complex" let's instead discuss an example showing how new information can be added to DNA.

Most people are probably aware of the existence of little critters called bacteria. They have been around for quite some time (somewhere between 6,000 years and 4 billion years) and quite naturally depend on being able to digest parts of their enviroment for survival. Different types of bacteria eat different things.

Back in 1938 a scientist named Dr. Wallace Hume Carothers invented a handy little substance called nylon. Nylon is artificial and basically cannot be produced by nature. Therefore, it makes some sense to conclude that no bacteria capable of digesting nylon would exist. And indeed, tests showed nylon to be highly resistant to decomposing.

Fast forward to the mid seventies when, somewhat to their surprise, Japanese scientists found several strains of bacteria happily muching away on nylon stockings. Further research has suggested that this new found ability to process nylon was the result of a genetic mutation. A mutation that turns out to be fairly easy to reproduce in the lab.

So there you have it. A clear cut example of mutations adding new information to DNA.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think there are a few examples of increases in DNA complexity:


1. Stem-loops: These are molecular speed bumps that stop transcription. Stem loops are caused by complementary sequences on the same strand of DNA creating a physical structure that stops the transcription of mRNA.

2. Chromosomes: The coiling of DNA into physical structures creates new ways to control RNA expression and heredity.
I could probably list a few other examples, such as telomeres and centromeres, but I have a feeling this is not answering the questions posed in the OP.