Evolution assumes a net gain in DNA

[Micaiah]

For evolution from 'slime to scientist' (ie. from the primordial ooze, or the supposed first simple single celled creature to humans) to have occured, there must be a net gain in information.

What do you think? Please respond as follows:

Yes or No.

Outline your supporting reasons.

 

[tryptophan]

Well, yes and no. I haven't studied it extensively, but I think that there would be some accumulation in total DNA over the billions of years since the first life form. However, this doesn't mean that each mutation would result in an increase in the total amount of DNA. Some mutations would simply take the space of previous DNA. In fact, some mutations would lead to deletions which would give the organism less DNA than before.

 

[notto]

Can you define 'information'? How do we measure it? What units do we use?

 

[Amalthea]

Can you define 'information'? How do we measure it? What units do we use?

The thread starter will either refuse to do this or will show his lack of knowledge by butchering the answer. You beat me to this as I was going to ask the same thing since Creationists never want to get pinned down on this one.

 

[seebs]

Luckily, thanks to Shannon, we know EXACTLY what "information" is.

And if someone doesn't like that definition, that's not our problem; we have a well-defined meaning of what "information" is.

And, yes: Evolution assumes an increase in "information" in that sense. Furthermore, we know of mechanisms that will produce such "information" through a combination of random modifications and natural selection.

 

[Micaiah]

Do you think you there is more DNA, more genetic 'information', in a scientist that the first single celled creature, or than the first pool of slime?

Back to the first question.

For evolution from 'slime to scientist' (ie. from the primordial ooze, or the supposed first simple single celled creature to humans) to have occured, there must be a net gain in information.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Do you think you there is more DNA, more genetic 'information', in a scientist that the first single celled creature, or than the first pool of slime?

Back to the first question.

Yes, there is more information.

Yes, we know how it got there.

What is the question?

 

[Gold Dragon]

The amount of DNA in this world increases whenever a cell duplicates, a process known as mitosis. This is happening all the time when your hair grows, skin grows back, blood cells get replaced in your spleen, etc.

Depending on your definition of information, new information in DNA happens all the time as well in sexual reproduction when a sperm and an egg join in a process known as meiosis which creates new genes and combinations of genes in a step of meiosis called recombination. Other ways of having new genetic information include genetic mutations.

 

[Micaiah]

So is that a yes or a no?

 

[Gold Dragon]

So is that a yes or a no?

So whether you believe in evolution or not, there is constantly a net gain in DNA in mitosis and DNA information whenever sexual reproduction happens. So yes, evolution is based on the known scientific fact that DNA information is increasing.

This is basic high school genetics and isn't all that controversial so it would help if we understood why this is important to you.

 

[Micaiah]

So you are saying that mitosis, meiosis, and recombination are all exampls of the processes that cause a net gain of information in the DNA, as you have stated happens in the supposed evolution from slime to scientist.

 

[Micaiah]

Can you define 'information'? How do we measure it? What units do we use?

Are the questions really that hard. You start of with nothing, you end up with a human DNA. Is there a net gain in information? As simple yes no was all that was asked for, and supporting reasons. Give you definition of information if required.

 

[notto]

Are the questions really that hard. You start of with nothing, you end up with a human DNA. Is there a net gain in information? As simple yes no was all that was asked for, and supporting reasons. Give you definition of information if required.

But we aren't starting out with nothing. We are starting out with either primordial ooze (which would need additional definition to know what you are talking about) or bacteria. To answer the question, we would need to know on what you are basing your measurment of information. Your original post is a bit confusing. The title talks about net DNA, the content talks about net information. They two may not be comparable. Withour working definitions of information, the answers can be inconsistent and be comparing apples to oranges (or DNA to information contained in the DNA). What do we determine to be one 'byte' of information in the DNA? A single rung? A combination of rungs that code for a protein? What if there are several that code for the same protein - does this count as one or two 'bytes' of information? What about non-coding DNA - do we count that?

As far as carrier information, its hard to say. My guess is that yes, there is more information in Human DNA than that of bacteria. Other animals may have more of this type of information depending on the number of genes an chromosomes. Not surprising, we have discovered mechanisms that can account for this and this was another possible falsification that the theory of evolution has passed. New 'information' can be generated by each of the mutation types we have observed.

My guess is that you are somehow tying the measure of 'information' to complexity. If that is the case, then you need to determine how to measure complexity.

 

[Gold Dragon]

So you are saying that mitosis, meiosis, and recombination are all exampls of the processes that cause a net gain of information in the DNA, as you have stated happens in the supposed evolution from slime to scientist.

Are the questions really that hard. You start of with nothing, you end up with a human DNA. Is there a net gain in information? As simple yes no was all that was asked for, and supporting reasons. Give you definition of information if required.

You are confusing two scientific theories here. Abiogenesis is a theory about life from non-life. Evolution is a theory about changes in living things. Evolution doesn't have anything to say about where the first common ancestor got life from. Your beef with this line of thinking about information is with abiogenesis. Once you have a single celled organism, mitosis, meiosis, sexual recombination and genetic mutations (all scientifically non-controversial facts) kick in to provide more DNA information.

I personally consider abiogenesis theory to be significantly weaker in scientific support than evolution and would have no problems with challenging it using your current line of reasoning. However, understand that your arguments have no impact whatsoever on the theories of evolution.

 

[Micaiah]

All the evolutionists I know claim the 'scientist from slime' story. I'm asking for confirmation that this represents a net increase in genetic information.

 

[notto]

All the evolutionists I know claim the 'scientist from slime' story. I'm asking for confirmation that this represents a net increase in genetic information.

What is the definiton of information you would like us to use to assess this? The answers to your questions depend on your definition of information? do you equate information with a net gain in the amount of DNA? The way you posted the question makes it look like you do. Is this correct? If so, then yes, the net increase in genetic information is there. We see this type of increase all the time.