Information: A problem for evolution?

[Vance]

Here is some useful information on "information theory":

They're actually talking about two distinct notions of information theory: one is Shannon's information theory; and one is Kolmogorov-Chaitin information theory.

For a nice description of Kolmogorov-Chaitin, I suggest The Limits of Mathematics by Greg Chaitin.

For Shannon's info theory, take a look at http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~sk260695/skinfo.html, which has a lot of links.

The creationist trick is to mix the two theories in a nonsensical way to create a false conclusion.

Shannon's theory deals with communication. He was working for Bell Labs, and his fundamental interest was in communication over noisy links. (The fundamental paper that first proposed Shannon IT was titled "Communication in the Presence of Noise".) In Shannon theory, entropy is randomness introduced by noise: communication over a noisy channel always adds entropy, but one can never add information - because the point is to correctly transmit information from a source to a destination. Noise along the channel can not add to the information content - because by definition, the only information was provided by the transmitter, and anything that occurs during transmission can, at best, not harm the information content of the transmission.

Shannon theory is thus the root of the creationist claim that "randomness cannot add information to a system".

Kolmogorov-Chaitin information theory is a totally different topic (and one that I know more about than Shannon). K-C is a version of information theory derived from computer science. It studies what it calls the information content of a string. In K-C information theory, one defines the information content of a string in terms of the randomness of the string: a string with lots of redundancy has low information content; the more random a string is, the less redundancy it has, and thus the more information each bit of it contains. K-C information theory is interesting in that it considers the size of the "decoding machine" used to interpret a string to be a part of the measure of information content of that string. K-C also has a definition of entropy as a measure of information content: entropy is a measure of the randomness of a string, and thus, of the information content of that string.

K-C information theory is absolutely fascinating, and has been used fairly widely in a lot of interesting ways. Greg Chaitin has been using it as a tool to study some very deep properties of mathematics; it's been used by theoretical computer scientists to analyze the intrinsic algorithmic complexity of computable problems; and it has been used to discuss the information content of DNA (because with DNA, the information content is not determined solely by the gene sequence, but by the machinery that processes it).

The creationist trick is to say that the term "entropy" means the same thing in both Shannon and K-C information theories. If that's true, then you can take a measure of the information content of DNA, using K-C terms, and then argue that on the basis of Shannon theory, the information content of the DNA can never increase.

The flaw here is actually pretty subtle. K-C says nothing about how information content can change. It simply talks about how to measure information content, and what, in fact, information content means in a mathematical/computational sense. But Shannon is working in a very limited field where there is a specific, predetermined upper bound on information content. K-C, by definition, has no such upper bound.

Adding randomness to a system adds noise to the system. By Shannon theory, that means that the information content of the system decreases. But by K-C theory, the information content will likely increase by the addition of randomness. K-C allows noise to increase information content; Shannon doesn't. Mix the two, you get something nonsensical, but you can create some very deep looking stuff that looks very dazzling to people who aren't trained in either form of information theory.


From here:


http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb01.html

 

[Crusadar]

But what if we scramble he codons of sequence A as we did to get the meaningless list of words.

Then we get:

arginine, valine, arginine, leusine, threonine

While this kind of rearrangement left no meaningful sentence in language, it is just as intelligible as an amino acid sequence as the original.

There is no loss of information as measured in K-C theory, nor any loss of specified complexity as described by Dembski.

This analogy falls short where DNA is concerned as shown above.

Now, just in case I seem to be implying that any sequence of codons is meaningful, I am not.

It better be if it is to be used in the building of life sustaining protein.

Take our sequence B above. The change from leusine to serine was made by changing the codon TTA to TCA. A slightly different change to TAA would have given us a "stop" codon. That would be like changing sentence A (He rode to meet her) to this sentence B "He. To meet her." Obviously this doesn't make sense. In fact in dna coding it makes even less sense because one of the codons (ATG) does double duty as coding for methionine and acting as a "start" codon. That means anything after the "stop" codon is not read at all until an ATG codon appears. So the actual effect of this change in the dna sequence would be like changing sentence A to "He. ___ ___ ___"

So according to this analogy a protein or enzyme with a totally new property can be made, correct? I really wonder where your getting this nonsense from. References?

Furthermore, just as there are certain language conventions that mean only certain word orders make sense, the very structure of amino acids means that only certain amino acids can follow other amino acids.

Wrong. It is the genetic code that determines which amino acid will be next in a chain of protein, not its structure. Chemical composition may allow it to form peptide bonds however it does not determine its function as there are thousands of combinations of proteins that can be assembled with just the 20 amino acids used by life(and all left handed at that). It is the bonds that form between the side chains of amino acids that gives it its shape and is critical to its function.

If a mutation changes a sequence such that incompatible amino acids are placed next to each other, this creates a non-functional sequence.

I hardly think so as non functional sequences are not non functional, only non coded.

A non (or less) functional sequence is one in which the sequence has not been specified by corresponding genetic code where a mutation has caused a change in the original code.

The more accurate term is “non-coding” sequences, there are no nonfunctional sequences that I know of, only non coding ones - where such sequences are being discovered to have functions continually. To conclude that if a sequence does not code because its purpose has not yet been discovered therefore it servers no function is disingenuous.

However, the likelihood that a given sequence of codons will yield a usable sequence of amino acids is rather more probable than that a given sequence of words will yield a meaningful sentence.

A usable sequence which would be used for what is the question? As you should already know without a properly assembled protein there is no function.

Part Three​

I can’t speak for Wieland, so I will leave your comments on him for him(or those who know his work). However I will address the parts that are pertinent to creationism in general.

Furthermore, biotech companies are currently creating proteins which have never existed in nature. Each such manufactured protein represents a sequence of amino acids which has never been observed in nature. And each such sequence of amino acids represents a gene "sentence" which nature has not used. New gene "sentences" are no more improbable than new sentences in any language.

I would hope so! After all intelligence was involved – just as creationists have been saying all along! Or do you suppose they just randomly mixed chemicals all day to achieve their results? Now I wonder where exactly are those proteins being used and are they as effective as naturally occurring ones – if they are being used at all in substitution of proteins? Some references would help.

Although not raised by either Wieland or Liberty Wing, we may also note that information theory does away with the argument that all we see in dna is a "rearrangement" of information, not new information. Re-arranged information IS new information, since, as Wieland says: "It results from the order—from the way in which the letters of the cell’s genetic ‘alphabet’ are arranged."

That would depend on which information theory and at what level of information you are talking about? False assumption, a rearrangement of present genetic information is not new information, it is simply rearrangement of existing information.

So, for example when we re-arrange the letters of CANOE to spell OCEAN, the re-arrangement IS new information. And when we change the order of codons from a sequence meaning
threonine, serine, arginine, arginine, valine

to one meaning

arginine, valine, arginine, leusine, threonine

that IS new information.

Now let’s see if this logic applies to protein synthesis. Where can we place this new information by the way to test out how it would interact and be utilized with existing information?

So, is the creationist view more reasonable than the scientific view? No.

More like gbunty wisdom to be exact – which so far is not scientific but simply evolutionist nonsense.

 

[Crusadar]

Part Four​

What's wrong with the creationist application of information theory?

None that I know of.

1. The creationist view denies the possibility that information can be added to a gene pool.

Only in particular instances where it does not already exist somewhere in nature.

This is manifestly contrary to the observations of molecular biologists.

Which molecular biologists by the way? And which processes? References would help.

Weiland, for example, dismisses polyploidy (the duplication of a whole genome) as "multiplication of information already present". Technically he is right, but at the very least multiplication of information already present adds to the gross amount of information. The amount of dna in a duplicated genome is double the amount in a single copy of the genome. Furthermore, both segments of the new genome (original and duplicated) continue to be subject to new mutations. Note what this means from a K-C measurement of information.

That would not be new information as its original source was still existing information - an exact copy at that! Forgetting of course that polyploidy usually results in offspring that can no longer breed with its predecessor - unless it can breed with itself it is doomed to extinction. So what type of evolutionary advantage would that be to mutate itself into extinction?

Suppose we already have a description of the genome. Let's call the sum total of code lines in that description G. Now the genome is duplicated. All we need to do is add one line of code: Repeat G. But then somewhere in the duplicated section of the genome, a mutation occurs. It is no longer possible to describe the duplicated section as "Repeat G", because it is no longer an exact duplicate of G. Now the whole duplicated section has to be itemized separately from the original section. The information has been randomized by the mutation, and, as we saw earlier, in K-C theory randomization=an increase in information.

It’s always good to have an extra backup copy of your system files. However extra copies of genetic material when it is gibberish will simply be corrected or discarded. As an example, I don’t know about you, but for humans having an extra 21st chromosome isn’t what I would call an advantage or “normal – after all it does result in the genetic disorder down syndrome. Now how about some honest to goodness references to where this has actually occurred and became beneficial where upward evolution has been confirmed to be the result?

But if, in addition to hybridization, polyploidy also occurs, every chromosome, no matter which parent it originated in, finds its mate in the duplicate genome. If polyploidy is simply a meaningless multiplication of information already present, how is it that one possible effect of polyploidy is a true new species?

Sure I wouldn’t mind having an extra arm or two. Twice the number of something hardly counts as new information though, now if it had sprouted something that wasn’t there to begin with then I would say it had gained something. And besides a “true” new species of what, flowers? Is it still a flower? The same type of plant in fact? Now if that is proof of evolution at work then Elvis is still alive after all!

I am no geneticist. I don't know the answers to these questions. But I suggest it is a way to test this theory of a thinned out gene pool.

Nor am I. And so I guess we better leave it to the geneticists then to answer these questions? But by the looks of what you have presented you better stick with the generalities (wishful thinking) of evolution as oppose to getting to the technical stuff. But I doubt anyone will have the answers any time soon if they continue to look in all the wrong places. I know one person who does though, and that’s the author of life – God, and He has told us so in His book.

Now lets consider human alleles. Cytochrome c was described as a well-preserved protein. It has not varied a lot. By contrast haemoglobin is a highly variable protein. In humans alone over 500 different alleles of haemoglobin are found in the gene pool.

You rattle on as if evolution is an established fact – meaning that you have already excluded the thought that maybe, just maybe, perhaps it was designed that way? After all cytochrome c is an essential protein that is required for cellular energy and should therefore be similar to some degree to perform similar functions in all organisms? However each variation shows no degradation of its capability in the organism it is found in and it does do its designed purpose well doest it?

Of course then there is the fact that cytochrome c only has roughly 100 plus amino acids which would require an equivalent amount of genetic information to assemble which would require less information to transcribe. The globin in haemoglobin on the other hand does have over 500 amino acids so the comparison between the two is quite different.

Furthermore if we look at the progress along the presumed evolutionary path from the simplest life form to the fish, amphibians, reptiles, primates and then humans, we should see a logical order of change in the arrangement of amino acids in these organisms shouldn’t we? What we really see are no progressive changes at all in the 100 or so amino acids arrangement that make up this protein. The only clear differences are minor ones which can logically be concluded as being designed for optimizing that particular protein for that particular creature – perhaps due to its physiology.

Lets take it a step further - if we compare human haemoglobin with that of crocodiles there are about 220 different amino acid substitions. The different amino acid substitutions in crocodile haemoglobin have been found to allow it to dump practically all of the oxygen it carries - where in humans only some. This means that it can use more of the oxygen that it breathes per breath. Now you may say that this is the result of blind evolution but I would much rather think that it was designed as such as it is more logical to conclude thus.

Of course, no one person exhibits more than two of these alleles. In order to have over 500 in the gene pool, there must be a minimum human population of over 250.

Again you are looking at it from the perspective of the evolutionists - as usual. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps there was an optimal haemoglobin protein to begin with and the 250 less inferior variations are simply derivatives of that one? But I guess that won’t do so let’s get on with it. Was the conclusion that a minimum population must exist based on the mapping of every known living individual’s dna to determine if this is the case or is it simply your fallacious assertion?

What would settle this however is a look at the reference where such a study has been done and where one can find it if one needed to verify if this was the case. Forgetting again however the important factors of variation and degradation - as both are important in the creationist paradigm. After all a good example of variance within any single person is the human immune system which can create antibodies for just about any infection out there and yet the information required for building a particular antibody is not found readily available as that would be too much information to have on hand and sort out.

However variance in haemoglobin protein shows nothing of darwinian evolution. It rather shows a degradation of the protein’s function in carrying oxygen. As you will note variations of the normal haemoglobin protein causes a variety of blood disorders (sickle cell anemia is one of them) which make it less capable of doing the job it was designed for.

If Weiland's scenario is correct, God could not begin the human population with only two individuals. The first human population would, at a minimum, have to be a village of at least 250+ people. More actually, as one has to allow for the fact that some will not reproduce.

If God had used evolutionist then of course He would be in trouble. It would follow the logic then that God created less than “very good” creations by deliberately designing deficient haemoglobin proteins which cannot perform its function to its full capability in some - while not in others. He would be a sadistic God indeed to purposely create a person with, lets say, sickle cell anemia. Sure they may survive in a geographic region where malaria is rampant, but just look at the host of other defects that also comes with having this blood disorder (not all at the same time of course) - cerebral thrombosis, eye problems, acute chest syndrome, splenic sequestration pulmonary hypertension, congestive heart failure, and hyposthenuria (failure to concentrate urine) - just to name a few.

And to guarantee that the human population today would have 500+ haemoglobin alleles in its gene pool, one must begin with a population whose gene pool is capable of carrying all these alleles.

Negative, if one begins with a normal haemoglobin protein and examine the variations which can be derived, it would be clear that devolution has occurred not evolution.

Furthermore, this minimum population must be maintained throughout history. One cannot permit a flood to reduce the human population to only 8 people. Most of those 500+ alleles would be lost forever.

False logic as shown above.

Given this scenario, information poses many more problems to creationism than to evolution.

I hardly think so – what you have done is hope that your slight of hand logic would deceive those who are not familiar with the topic at hand. What you have done is actually done nothing less than present a weak support of Darwinian evolution - if that.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

meaning that it all had to be there at once or it won’t work. Hence the idea of new enzymatic protein functions being acquired through the process of gradual single steps as evolution teaches is very much ludicrous.

the nylon bug effectively disputes this and most of the YECist information theory stuff.

point mutation. frameshift. new-never before seen enzyme. which uses a man-made chemical for a foodstuff.

end of discussion.

...

 

[gluadys]

"Information" is a loaded word. The root is "inform." It inferrs an intelligible communication. On the other hand, could it not be said that some sort of communication takes place when a base comes near an acid?

As seebs notes, etymology is not meaning. But we can get some interesting insights from etymology. For example, the root of "information" is "inform". But what is the root of "inform"? Clearly it is "in" + "form" which implies making a change "in" a "form".

For example, to apply a chisel to a block of marble is to create "in-form-ation".

Back in 1970 when our church was dealing with theological questions raised by new technologies, our Committee on Church Doctrine used a systems theory approach in which it spoke of information as follows:

As parts influence parts within systems, so systems influence other systems. They impinge on one another at their boundaries and that is where ‘information’ appears. … When we change or re-shape anything in any way, we make information. When we do this deliberately and according
to certain rules, we call it communication. … We communicate, however, by more means than sounds. In how many ways can you change yourself or something by your power? In that many ways we can affect other people and create information. Our communication is our whole life. A man’s[sic] (this was pre-inclusive language--gl) word is the man. Mutual communication of our lives is communion.

Where the first elipsis appears, the original report used the example of the system of a boot impinging on the boundary of the system of a tin can resulting in the "in-form-ation" of a boot-shaped dent in the can.

In addition to technology, we can quickly think of numerous natural interactions in which systems impinge on systems and create such information at their boundaries.

 

[gluadys]

Part Two​

Before applying information theory to genetic information, we need to look at how genetic information is structured and how it is decoded into meaningful information.​

I would hope that you aren’t going to leave all your analogies at the statistical level.

Of course I am. What would the measurable unit of information be at a higher level?

The structure is quite similar to a language which uses an alphabetic system of writing. The four base nucleotides of the DNA molecule are analogous to the letters of an alphabet.

In terms of convention I would agree, where one symbol represents a concept (which by the way is a product of the mind). However the analogy only goes so far, as writing systems are flexible and can change quickly with time. The genetic language however is much more precise, and is less forgiving when an error is left uncorrected.

Which saves us a level of complexity when dealing with DNA.

Actually at the least a symbol needs to be assigned a corresponding concept…. where in words there is continual change and refinement, in DNA little has changed since its creation -.

Again, we are saved a level of complexity in DNA as all the codons have assigned meanings in terms of amino acids or stop codons and these have not changed.

Now words can convey some meaning on their own. "Ocean" or "canoe" call up meaningful images. Just so, codons have significance. Each stands for an amino acid used in biological systems, except for the three that mean "stop"

Words alone do not convey any meaning, it is the agreed on representation of a concept which it has been assigned that carries the meaning. After all what would “ocean” or “canoe” mean to a Chinese or for that matter “zongua” or “xie xie” mean to English speakers as ourselves?

Another way in which we are spared complexities in DNA sequences. There is only one DNA language which is understood by all species—so no convention required. Or rather the convention was established chemically as DNA originated.

The second difference is that every codon has a specified meaning. But not every sequence of letters has a specified meaning. For example, even though we cannot specify the total number of words in a language, we can specify the total number of three-letter sequences that are possible. With a 26-letter alphabet, the total number of 3-letter sequences is 26^3=17, 576. But the majority of these will have no specified meaning. They will be random sequences such as "lpq" or "ggj". Only sequences such as "but" or "fly" have specified meaning as Dembski describes it.

[/font]Again what makes this analogy work is that there exists already an established convention where certain combinations are preassigned a specific meaning.

It is not just “certain” combinations which have a specific meaning. All 64 of the possible nucleotide sequences have a specified meaning.

In the case of dna each codon represents a small part of complex system in which has already be assigned a function so a change in its designation wound have drastic consequences.

Not at all. Check out the code. Since we use 20 amino acids and have 61 triplets to signify them, most amino acids can be coded for by more than one triplet. For example, both CAU and CAC code for histidine. Many amino acids have four possible codes and some have six. So a change from AGC to UGC has no effect at all as both code for serine. Geneticists call these “silent mutations”.

Chemical similarities also mean that some chemicals can substitute for others without affecting the function of the protein in any way. So there is lots of scope for change without the change being drastic.

If we lengthen the number of letters in a sequence, we will get even higher numbers of possible sequences, but much much lower numbers of sequences which form meaningful words. How many sequences of 15 letters form a word in the dictionary?

Two that I know of - uncopyrightable and dermatoglyphics.

I could probably dig out a few more. But would you say that there are more 15 letter words in English than there are three letter words in English? That was the point.

There is no such thing as a gibberish codon. All 64 possible words in the dna dictionary have specified meanings, and a change in a codon simply changes the specification. No specificity is lost.

Meaning in that it specifies an amino acid?

Right.

That does not give what it is to be transcribed a function – the question is what function will the new sequence code?

That is a different field of information. Here I am not dealing with the meaning of the sequence, but with the information that builds the sequence in the first place. Codon->amino acid. This is more akin to word formation while what you are asking is more akin to sentence formation. Both levels demand information, but you can’t confuse one level with the other.

Can you demonstrate this experimentally or is this more wishful thinking? That is that you can alter the code of any genetic sequence randomly and give it new functions?

You can certainly alter the code of any genetic sequence randomly. But there can be various different results: loss of function, impaired function, no change in function, minimal change in how a function occurs (a change in process more than a change in function), new function. The last, of course, is the rarest.

It is also worth noting that any of the above changes can be beneficial in terms of increasing fitness.

So let's start with a couple of sentences and assess the information in them.

A. He rode to meet her.
B. He rose to greet her.

In K-C theory sentence B represents a gain of one bit of information (since "gr" at the beginning of "greet" replaces "m" at the beginning of "meet."). The other change of "d" to "s" does not represent either an increase or a decrease of information.

The problem here is that you are making no clear distinction between the bits themselves i.e. the physical aspect (phonetic symbols, pictographs etc.) and what it represents – that is its content.

The bits are units of information which can be quantified so that we can determine whether or not the amount of information increased.

Content goes beyond information to message. Different concept. Different analysis required. So actually I am being very clear. In terms of units of information (in this case alphanumeric symbols including spaces and punctuation) B contains one additional unit of information compared to A. In one case the substitution of a different letter does not increase the amount of information, although it does change the content.

It is ironic that a creationist makes this charge, as this is the sort of shifting of the meaning of the word “information” that is typical of creationist writing on the subject. The failure to distinguish quantity from quality means that the creationist never answers the question “How do you measure information?”

Within an already established convention (English) – both sentences have meaning.

Precisely. And the DNA/RNA code is such a “convention”. However, it is one humans have discovered rather than invented.

Whether each sentence has gained an increase in information is determined by its context.

Depends on whether you are talking about quantity or quality. See above.

Here is a much better analogy:

Whether an analogy is better or not depends on the point you are trying to make. This is a better analogy for the point you are trying to make, not for the point I am making. It is irrelevant, because the point of your analogy is that you have to understand the language. All species do “understand” the DNA “language”.

Sounds good in theory, but how does changing the coding for a few amino acids relate to how it would function in the organism you wish to hypothetically introduce this substitution?

See above.

Remember that changing only one nucleotide sequence is known to have detrimental effects on its host so such a drastic change would have an even more catastrophic repercussion if it were to occur.

True. It is also known to have a beneficial effect, like giving its possessor the capacity to digest nylon. Neither the type of genetic change, nor the amount of genetic change is related to whether the change will affect the protein at all, still less to whether a change will be harmful or beneficial. In fact, the very same change can be beneficial in one environment and harmful in another.

Still lets suppose that the new sequence served a function. What would the new sequence after switching now code for? What new properties will it serve that was not there before? What functions if any will it now possess that it did not have before - after all such change was never planned?

Matters to be investigated case by case.

From what we know about enzymes (which require exact assembly instruction in that of dna), if it is assembled incorrectly it won’t fold correctly and will serve no function.

Actually, that is not true. Enzymes are proteins, and proteins are quite flexible (some more than others) in how they can be assembled and still fold correctly and function. That is why you can get large protein families like the globins. Even a protein quite resistant to change, like cytochrome c, still varies from species to species with the difference between human and bacterial cytochrome c being in the neighbourhood of 60%. DNA is not so much a blueprint for a protein as a recipe which can exist in many different variations.

Hence the idea of new enzymatic protein functions being acquired through the process of gradual single steps as evolution teaches is very much ludicrous.

Nonsense. Will continue later. Have to catch a train now.

 

[gluadys]

But what if we scramble he codons of sequence A as we did to get the meaningless list of words.

This analogy falls short where DNA is concerned as shown above.

You mean as not shown above.

So according to this analogy a protein or enzyme with a totally new property can be made, correct?

Please define “totally new”.

Furthermore, just as there are certain language conventions that mean only certain word orders make sense, the very structure of amino acids means that only certain amino acids can follow other amino acids.

Wrong. It is the genetic code that determines which amino acid will be next in a chain of protein, not its structure.

I will check out the reference for this. My understanding is that amino acids have structures that mean one may not be able to fit next to another in a sequence. This may be, as you say, a question of the side chains.

I hardly think so as non functional sequences are not non functional, only non coded.

I think you mean non-coding. Remember we are talking about the formation of proteins here, not the function of proteins. A non-coding sequence is non-functional in the sense that it does not code for a protein.

A non (or less) functional sequence is one in which the sequence has not been specified by corresponding genetic code where a mutation has caused a change in the original code.

The more accurate term is “non-coding” sequences, there are no nonfunctional sequences that I know of, only non coding ones - where such sequences are being discovered to have functions continually. To conclude that if a sequence does not code because its purpose has not yet been discovered therefore it servers no function is disingenuous.

Did you make up the sentence you responded to? It is not in my post, and frankly, it doesn't make sense.

A usable sequence which would be used for what is the question? As you should already know without a properly assembled protein there is no function.

The point is that most alphanumeric sequences don’t code for anything meaningful at all, because most don’t code for words. But all DNA triplets code for an amino acid or stop. So the potential for a DNA sequence to be meaningful is higher. Those that code for proteins, though, may still be rarer than those that do not.

New gene "sentences" are no more improbable than new sentences in any language. [/b]

I would hope so! After all intelligence was involved – just as creationists have been saying all along! Or do you suppose they just randomly mixed chemicals all day to achieve their results? Now I wonder where exactly are those proteins being used and are they as effective as naturally occurring ones – if they are being used at all in substitution of proteins? Some references would help.

The point is that they refute Weiland’s “no new sentences” claim.

That would depend on which information theory and at what level of information you are talking about? False assumption, a rearrangement of present genetic information is not new information, it is simply rearrangement of existing information.

Yeah, there is no new information in Macbeth. It only rearranges the same letters as were used to write Hamlet.

We have four base nucleotides. All genetic information is written using them. If rearranging them does not produce new information, what does? We have 20 amino acids used by life forms. If rearranging them doesn’t change the protein products, what does?

Now let’s see if this logic applies to protein synthesis. Where can we place this new information by the way to test out how it would interact and be utilized with existing information?

In a gamete.

 

[Delta One]

seebs,

It is worth noting that Gitt is a creationist, who starts with the very questionable assumption that information cannot exist without a code.

It is equally interesting to note that he is one of the world's leading information scientists who has written many laws and theories on the subject of information science.

Every physicist knows otherwise. Think about the very nature of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; you cannot simultaneously know the location and velocity of a particle. But... You can know at least one. What is that thing you can know? It's information.
The world itself contains information. You don't need a code to have information; you need a code to transmit it.

You appear to be confused about the difference between data and information. In computeristic terms, data is just a meaningless collection of letters, numbers and other characters if present. When this data is given meaning by humans it then becomes known as information. Using your example, you can know the location and velocity of a particle. By themselves, these are just numbers. Meaningless combination of numbers; it is not until they are interpreted by humans and given meaning that they become information. There is also only a small difference between your example and the DNA system.

The word information is a bunch of letters combined with meaning that was given by humans (i.e. what information means). The "code" of the word is our alphabet. The word "information" can be transmitted in a number of ways through a number of different mediums. For example, it can be transmitted through speach (I won't define the mechanism involved, e.g. vibrations in the air molecules, and so on) but that is one of the transmission methods of the word "information".

 

[gluadys]

Part Four​

What's wrong with the creationist application of information theory?

1. The creationist view denies the possibility that information can be added to a gene pool.

Only in particular instances where it does not already exist somewhere in nature.

That may be your position. I assure you many creationists take the position that no new information can be added under any conditions.

This is manifestly contrary to the observations of molecular biologists.

Which molecular biologists by the way? And which processes? References would help.

Oh, let's say about 99%+

That would not be new information as its original source was still existing information - an exact copy at that! Forgetting of course that polyploidy usually results in offspring that can no longer breed with its predecessor - unless it can breed with itself it is doomed to extinction. So what type of evolutionary advantage would that be to mutate itself into extinction?

Many plants are self-pollinating. I don't know if that would be a pre-requisite for successful speciation in this way, but if the plant is self-pollinating, the scenario poses no problem.

It’s always good to have an extra backup copy of your system files. However extra copies of genetic material when it is gibberish will simply be corrected or discarded.

Well, no it isn't. About 97% of the human genome is apparently gibberish and is copied right along with the coding DNA.

Now how about some honest to goodness references to where this has actually occurred and became beneficial where upward evolution has been confirmed to be the result?

"Upward evolution"? How quaint. That is not the way evolution works.

Beneficial mutations? Here.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040913/full/040913-20.html

Sure I wouldn’t mind having an extra arm or two. Twice the number of something hardly counts as new information though, now if it had sprouted something that wasn’t there to begin with then I would say it had gained something. And besides a “true” new species of what, flowers? Is it still a flower? The same type of plant in fact? Now if that is proof of evolution at work then Elvis is still alive after all!

Ah, all the old PRATTS. You claim to want to see a new species, and when a new species is presented to you --- one that does not interbreed with its parents, even though they are growing right there in the same field---suddenly there are a hundred reasons why that doesn't count.

Hope you don't get too tired of carrying those goal posts around.

I am no geneticist. I don't know the answers to these questions. But I suggest it is a way to test this theory of a thinned out gene pool.

Nor am I. And so I guess we better leave it to the geneticists then to answer these questions?

I did get answers from a cell biologist when the OPs were copied to the Creation & Evolution board in the open forums.

Here they are:

If this were actually true, we should find significantly fewer genes in a highly specialized dog breed than in a wolf. Do we?

No

We should find that a hybrid organism contains more genes than either parent. Do we?

No


For the more speciations there are, the fewer genes each resulting species should have. Is this what we actually find?


No

http://www.christianforums.com/t1231977-information-a-problem-for-evolution.html

You rattle on as if evolution is an established fact – meaning that you have already excluded the thought that maybe, just maybe, perhaps it was designed that way?

Actually, I don't exclude design. After all, I believe in a Creator God. You are also assuming that I grew up with my head filled with evolutionary explanations. Actually, it was the reverse. I learned creationism first, and had to be shown the merits of evolution. So I am not "excluding design" as a matter of course, without having considered it seriously.

Of course then there is the fact that cytochrome c only has roughly 100 plus amino acids which would require an equivalent amount of genetic information to assemble which would require less information to transcribe. The globin in haemoglobin on the other hand does have over 500 amino acids so the comparison between the two is quite different.

That is irrelevant actually. Except that 500 amino acids offers more scope for variation. The point here is that there are very few different versions of cytochrome c even across widely separated species, while there are over 500 different versions of haemoglobin just in humans alone.

Furthermore if we look at the progress along the presumed evolutionary path from the simplest life form to the fish, amphibians, reptiles, primates and then humans, we should see a logical order of change in the arrangement of amino acids in these organisms shouldn’t we? What we really see are no progressive changes at all in the 100 or so amino acids arrangement that make up this protein. The only clear differences are minor ones which can logically be concluded as being designed for optimizing that particular protein for that particular creature – perhaps due to its physiology.

"Progress"? You really need to update your information on evolution. Evolution has not been seen as progressing toward a goal since orthogenesis was discarded back in the 1930s.

There is a logical order of change in the arrangement of amino acids in cytochrome c. It is a hierarchal phylogenic arrangement. You might check out these links for more information.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/mol.bio.html
Lesson
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.pd.html
Links to handouts
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.aa.pdf
AMINO ACID SEQUENCES IN CYTOCHROME-C PROTEINS FROM 20 DIFFERENT SPECIES

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.nu.pdf
Matrix & tree for above

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molbms5.pdf
Lesson handouts with key

Again you are looking at it from the perspective of the evolutionists - as usual. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps there was an optimal haemoglobin protein to begin with and the 250 less inferior variations are simply derivatives of that one?

Sure, but the derivatives would have to come about by mutation, and Weiland's point is that you can't increase information with mutations. He simply hasn't dealt with the question of alleles at all.

Are you sure you know what an allele is?

But I guess that won’t do so let’s get on with it. Was the conclusion that a minimum population must exist based on the mapping of every known living individual’s dna to determine if this is the case or is it simply your fallacious assertion?

Simple mathematics. We have diploid cells. This means that we have two copies of the human genome in each cell (including germ cells). So at any gene locus we can have one variant of the gene on one chromosome, and another on its mate. But we can't have more than that. (Also frequently, we have the same variant on both chromosomes.)

But if there are more than two variants found in the species, then there has to be a larger population than one person. To carry the three different alleles responsible for blood type, you need at least two people (One to carry two alleles, the other to carry the third.)

If you have fifteen gene variants for one locus you need at least 8 people. And for 500 you need at least 250 people.

This is not a problem if one accepts that new alleles are created by mutations. But Weiland assumes genes are "single sentences" which don't change, so (though he doesn't recognize it) he has put himself in a box demanding a minimum human population at all times.

After all a good example of variance within any single person is the human immune system which can create antibodies for just about any infection out there and yet the information required for building a particular antibody is not found readily available as that would be too much information to have on hand and sort out.

Interestingly, this shows a phylogenic relation too. Not from organism to organism, but from white blood cell to white blood cell.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/ (See diagram a little more than half-way down & read section on antibodies).

However variance in haemoglobin protein shows nothing of darwinian evolution. It rather shows a degradation of the protein’s function in carrying oxygen. As you will note variations of the normal haemoglobin protein causes a variety of blood disorders (sickle cell anemia is one of them) which make it less capable of doing the job it was designed for.

The fact that some variations are not as successful as others doesn't indicate they did not evolve. And if some are less successful, others are more successful.

If God had used evolutionist then of course He would be in trouble. It would follow the logic then that God created less than “very good” creations by deliberately designing deficient haemoglobin proteins which cannot perform its function to its full capability in some - while not in others. He would be a sadistic God indeed to purposely create a person with, lets say, sickle cell anemia. Sure they may survive in a geographic region where malaria is rampant, but just look at the host of other defects that also comes with having this blood disorder (not all at the same time of course) - cerebral thrombosis, eye problems, acute chest syndrome, splenic sequestration pulmonary hypertension, congestive heart failure, and hyposthenuria (failure to concentrate urine) - just to name a few.

First, you are confusing sickle-cell trait (which protects against malaria) and sickle-cell anaemia, (which usually results in a short life-span) It is those who have anaemia who also suffers the other problems (which hasten their death). But those who have only one allele for sickle-cell trait are protected from malaria and don't get the other problems either. Because, they only carry the allele. They don't have any disorder.

And the whole general argument is more of a problem for ID than TE.

And to guarantee that the human population today would have 500+ haemoglobin alleles in its gene pool, one must begin with a population whose gene pool is capable of carrying all these alleles.

Negative, if one begins with a normal haemoglobin protein and examine the variations which can be derived, it would be clear that devolution has occurred not evolution.

Non-sequitor. It doesn't matter what the effect of the alleles are. The point is that if you do not allow for mutation, you simply need enough copies of the genome to hold all the variants, and people only carry two copies each. If you allow for mutation, new alleles can enter the gene pool as the population increases, but this means adding information.

 

[Delta One]

Hi gluadys,

I didn't read your whole introduction (I'm not totally up to such a challange at the moment as I've got a little bit of a headache. So I'll quickly chip in my two cents and go off to bed. My Dad and sister are watching a DVD upstairs with really, really loud music and it's getting to me. On second thought, I might end up going over to my grand parents place. Problem: I don't know if I've got enough petrol to get over there and back. I've done 560ish km out of a 40 L tank, which is pretty good. It's about 40 km to get there and back. Damn the cost of petrol these days, it's AU 112.9 cents/L = AU$1.13/L! I will never complain about 90 cents/L anymore if the prices were to drop to that price.

Please define “totally new”.

Totally new as in not previous seen in that kind or the genome population or a creature. For example, reptiles producing the information to allow them to grow feathers.

If the changes that we observe today don't add any new information (specified complexity) to the genome, then why do scientists always treat them as genetic load or burdern? Is it not true that there has not been one observed mutation that has been seen to increase the amount of information in the genome? Also, if there have been any examples of naturalistic processes or any evolutionary process adding new information to the genome, then, why didn't Dr Dawkins simply state that on the AiG video From a Frog to a Prince? Had he answered that question he would have destroyed the point that the whole documentary was about! And I am sure that he is much more knowledgable than you on this topic.

The Totally Naked Rooster (TNR) is a good example of how mutations destroyed the specified commands for making feathers. This is an example of what I am talking about. All other examples of mutations work in a similar way to this TNR mutation. They all destroy specified commands that control various features, most destroy the ability to produce various features that the same creature without the mutation has, while some are lethal, and others, although they produce a loss of a certain ability due to a loss of the specified information needed to produce/or create properly a specific feature, may actually prove benefical for a creature's survival, e.g. beetles losing the information or instructions for making wings on a windy ilsland surrounded by water. Without wings they cannot fly and hence, won't be blown into the sea.

 

[shernren]

I'm out of my league in discussing information theory, however I did notice an interesting question on whether polyploidy has resulted in new species. I did a Google search on it and:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Polyploidy.html

 

[mythbuster]

GLUADYS,

With statements like this:

Typically, creationists never define "information" or provide any means of measuring it. Yet they claim that information decreases but never increases. Clearly the claim cannot be backed up without a measuring tool.

your entire post loses traction, at least with this creationist.
We can and do use existing definitions. Not only so but a decrease in information or an increase in entropy can be measured by anybody, thus quantifying and elevating the debate.
shalom

 

[seebs]

The problem is that every real definition of information shows that evolutionary processes can and do "add information". So the "mainstream" Creationist arguments have to rely on very strange definitions of "information", or just plain lie.

 

[gluadys]

GLUADYS,

With statements like this:

your entire post loses traction, at least with this creationist.
We can and do use existing definitions. Not only so but a decrease in information or an increase in entropy can be measured by anybody, thus quantifying and elevating the debate.
shalom

What existing definitions? I don't mean a definition in terms of "bits" of information as used in a computer. I mean, how is this definition applied genetically? What is the biological "bit" of information?

And given that, how do you define an increase or decrease in the amount of information.

When somebody tells me that genetic information cannot or does not increase, I want a clear understanding of how you would identify an increase. Or a decrease for that matter.

I have never received an understandable answer to this from a creationist, nor have I found it on any creationist web site. So if you can point me to someplace where this is discussed, I would be happy to see it.

 

[mythbuster]

GLUADYS,
Right off the top of my head I have information in bits/symbol is the base two log of the number of symbols. So for a four symbol alphabet each symbol is worth two bits. The base two log of four is two. If we had 16 symbols then each symbol is worth four bits, and so on. If we treat the genetic code as a four symbol alphabet, each symbol worth two bits, then we can and do measure the information capacity of, say the, chromosomes in the cells in our bodies. This is classic Shannon stuff. And here it is matter of measuring information capacity. But that won't help us for this discussion. I only mention this to show why we use "bits"

Thanks to Dembski, whom you quoted so I assume you have read his material on this subject, he correlates information with complexity. Then it becomes a matter of determining an increase in complexity. An increase in complexity implies an increase in information.
How about that for a simple definition?
When my son crashed his motorcycle and lost his spleen he came home less complex than when he left. (But his genetic code remained the same.)
For these forums I prefer to argue based on observed complexity and leave the math behind. Besides this software does not support math formulas.

For more information on this subject go here: http://www.iscid.org/ The International Society for Complexity , Information, and Design.
Shalom

 

[gluadys]

GLUADYS,
Right off the top of my head I have information in bits/symbol is the base two log of the number of symbols. So for a four symbol alphabet each symbol is worth two bits. The base two log of four is two. If we had 16 symbols then each symbol is worth four bits, and so on. If we treat the genetic code as a four symbol alphabet, each symbol worth two bits, then we can and do measure the information capacity of, say the, chromosomes in the cells in our bodies. This is classic Shannon stuff. And here it is matter of measuring information capacity. But that won't help us for this discussion. I only mention this to show why we use "bits"

But as you say, that measures information capacity in the genome. As we know, a great deal of capacity in the genome is not used for anything we know of. Yet changes occur in both coding and non-coding DNA. If an insertion occurs, is it increased information wherever it occurs, or only in coding DNA? Or is it increased information capacity in either case and only increased information in the second case? How do you determine which is the correct answer?

(But his genetic code remained the same.)

Exactly. That is why individuals do not evolve. Populations evolve. So this example has nothing to do with measuring genetic information or whether mutations can add information to a genome.

For these forums I prefer to argue based on observed complexity and leave the math behind.

The problem is that you observe complexity on a morphological level. But that complexity is coded by genetic information. So you are still left with the question of how to perceive whether there has been an increase in the genetic information. As well as determining the cause of the increase.

And it seems to me that it must be much more difficult to calculate increased morphological complexity than it is to measure how much information change has occurred in a gene. How many parameters would you have to use, and how would you weight them?

Furthermore, evolution is more a matter of increased fitness than increased complexity. Sometimes the two measures work in tandem, but sometimes they work at cross purposes.

Besides this software does not support math formulas.

I don't understand math formulas beyond simple arithmetic so the forumulas you can't express with what is on your keyboard would be lost on me anyway. If you had given me a formula for the base log of 4, I would not have been able to decipher the formula, much less come up with the right answer. So you have educated me already.

Is base log always the same thing as square root? Oh, wait a minute, I see you specified the base 2 log, so that would be square root, right, and a base 3 log would be cube root? Am I getting this?

 

[Delta One]

gluadys,

What existing definitions? I don't mean a definition in terms of "bits" of information as used in a computer. I mean, how is this definition applied genetically? What is the biological "bit" of information?

Although not entirely sure on how the information is defeined exactly, but I believe that it is defined as a specified and meaningful code, like the DNA that gives instructions for making feathers on birds. When the letters in this code are either missing or jumbled around, the information for making the feathers may have been lost and the bird then becomes what we call "naked". This is an example of a loss of information. An increase would, IMHO, be one in which an addition of not previously seen DNA code that controls the production of a certain feature, such as feathers, appears in a creature that has never had such code, or information, in their genome, e.g. a reptile. Now, massive amounts of specified and meaningful DNA information must be created if you are going to change a reptile into a bird - considering all the differences.

The problem is that we see no natural process that increases the amount of new (as far as evolution is concerned, brand new previous unseen information must have kept coming into the genome for one kind of animal to change into another very different kind, e.g. reptile to bird) specified and meaningful DNA in a genome. Of course we see changes in the genome, but most are just random and none have actually increased the meaning in the genome. In fact, many mutations are known from the diseases that they cause, e.g. sickle cell anemia (I've probably spelt that wrong). Notice with this mutation that the mutation has destroyed (or jumbled around) some of the highly complex and very specific DNA required to produce strong and healthy cells. In fact, living with only one inherited gene of sickle cell anemia is like living a normal life (I believe), but if you get both sickle cell anemia genes from your parents then you're dead! Scientists treat mutations as genetic load or burden.

The two following are replies by the Editor at AiG to similar question's that you're asking us here; feel free to look over them:

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10September2001.asp
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp

 

[mythbuster]

Is base log always the same thing as square root? Oh, wait a minute, I see you specified the base 2 log, so that would be square root, right, and a base 3 log would be cube root? Am I getting this?

This is how my pea brain works out logs.
Start with base 10.
What is Log 1000?
To solve this I ask the question, what is the exponent that gives me 1,000?
Or, to what number will I raise 10 to get 1000?
And the answer is 3. Ten raised to the third power is 1000.
So the Log 1000 = 3 (base ten)

Here is another example
What is Log 1,000,000?
So I ask to what power will we raise 10 to get one million?
The solution is 6, 10 raised to the sixth power is one million.
log 1,000,000 = 6 (base ten)
So here is a table:
Log 1 = 0
Log 10 = 1
Log 100 = 2
Log 1,000 =3
Log 10,000 = 4
...
And so on.

Base 2 is the same but just weirder.
For base 2 lets find Log 4.
Ask the question to what number do we raise 2 to get 4?
The solution is 2. 2 raised to the second power is four.
Log 4 = 2

How about Log 16? (base 2)
Ask, to what power do we raise 2 to get 16? the solution is 4.
2 X 2 X 2 X 2 = 2 ^ 4 = 16, where that little carrot means exponent.
So Log 16 = 4.

Here is another table.
For base 2.
Log 1 = 0
Log 2 = 1
Log 4 = 2
Log 8 = 3
Log 16 = 4
...
and so on.

One more thing. The story abount my son becoming less complex was supposed to be a joke.

no spell check

shalom

 

[gluadys]

This is how my pea brain works out logs.
Start with base 10.
What is Log 1000?
To solve this I ask the question, what is the exponent that gives me 1,000?
Or, to what number will I raise 10 to get 1000?
And the answer is 3. Ten raised to the third power is 1000.
So the Log 1000 = 3 (base ten)

Here is another example
What is Log 1,000,000?
So I ask to what power will we raise 10 to get one million?
The solution is 6, 10 raised to the sixth power is one million.
log 1,000,000 = 6 (base ten)
So here is a table:
Log 1 = 0
Log 10 = 1
Log 100 = 2
Log 1,000 =3
Log 10,000 = 4
...
And so on.

Base 2 is the same but just weirder.
For base 2 lets find Log 4.
Ask the question to what number do we raise 2 to get 4?
The solution is 2. 2 raised to the second power is four.
Log 4 = 2

How about Log 16? (base 2)
Ask, to what power do we raise 2 to get 16? the solution is 4.
2 X 2 X 2 X 2 = 2 ^ 4 = 16, where that little carrot means exponent.
So Log 16 = 4.

Here is another table.
For base 2.
Log 1 = 0
Log 2 = 1
Log 4 = 2
Log 8 = 3
Log 16 = 4
...
and so on.

Thanks. The math is really simple to understand, though with more complicated numbers I expect it is not easy to process. It is just another way of referencing powers, which I already understood. So it was really just an unfamiliar terminology to me.

One more thing. The story abount my son becoming less complex was supposed to be a joke.

no spell check

shalom

Oh, I wish we could always tell when someone is joking. But I have seen that sort of example used in all seriousness.

And I just came from another board where a poster linked to a page with several charts of "Evolution vs. Creation" information.

The last one (Other Differences) lists as a tenet of evolution that the first humans were asexual. And the very sad thing is that I don't believe he was joking.

 

[gluadys]

An increase would, IMHO, be one in which an addition of not previously seen DNA code that controls the production of a certain feature, such as feathers, appears in a creature that has never had such code, or information, in their genome, e.g. a reptile.

Emphasis added.

My problem is that I really, really don't know what creationists mean by this.

The DNA code is based on four base nucleotides. These are organized into 3-letter codons. Each codon signifies an amino acid (except for those that mean "stop"). The sequence of codons specifies the sequence of amino acids that are assembled to build a protein.

Now where in that process could one get a "not previously seen DNA code"?

Is it in the four base nucleotides? I think not. I have never seen it suggested that the "new information" which needs to be identified would consist of a previously unused base nucleotide.

Is it in the triplets of nucleotides that code for amino acids? Well, unless you use a totally new base nucleotide you are still limited to the same 64 codons.

So is it in the relationship of codon to amino acid? Is the "new information" to be sought in a codon that signifies leusine changing its signification to valine? Not likely given the universality of the code.

So what is left? The sequencing of the codons, reflected in the sequencing of the amino acids that make up the protein. Obviously, this can be changed in a near infinite number of ways.

But the standard creationist response to this is:

"That's not new information; it is only the reshuffling of information that is already there."

So, please, please explain to me what you really mean by "a not previously seen DNA code".

The two following are replies by the Editor at AiG to similar question's that you're asking us here; feel free to look over them:

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10September2001.asp

Well, for me to understand the first part of this I need more help with mathematical notation.

I think I understand most of the elements of the notation singly. I am just not sure how to put them together into something meaningful.

The formula and most of the equations start with "H". Would I be right in thinking this is a Greek "eta" rather than an English "aitch" and that it stands for "Entropy"?

Next we get an upper-case Greek sigma. I see this often in formulas and I suspect it stands for "sum". Is that right?

The other elements are n, i and f which I take to stand for "number" "increment" and "fraction". (or more precisely "fractional component"?)

Is there any significance to the placement of the n above the sigma? and the i=1 below it?

The i is also written as a subscript to the f. What does that mean?

Enough math for now. I'll see later if I can follow through with this section.

Below the math he discusses an enzyme which ordinarily catalyzes a particular sugar, but which, in a lab experiment developed the capacity to live on two others. I can see his application of entropy to this. But I am not sure he appreciates the nature of the mutation.

What bothers me more are the conclusions he is jumping to in his section "The Danger of Jumping to Conclusions".

For example, he says:

"An evolutionist would be tempted to see here the beginning of a trend. He might be inclined to jump to the conclusion that with a series of many mutations of this kind, one after another, evolution could produce an enzyme that would have a high activity on xylitol and a low, or zero, activity on ribitol."

Now, why would he say this when the original researchers [Burleigh et al. (1974, Biochem. J. 143:341)] that he cites did not jump to that conclusion but went on to do more tests? (I am going out on a limb here and assuming the researchers were not creationists--but I think that is a pretty safe assumption.)

His very citation of the paper refutes his statement.

Farther on he says:

The evolutionist community, from Darwin to today, has based its major claims on unwarranted conclusion jumping. Darwin saw that pigeon breeders could achieve a wide variety of forms in their pigeons by selection, and he assumed that the reach of selection was unlimited. Evolutionists, who have seen crops and farm animals bred to have many commercially desirable features, have jumped to the conclusion that natural selection, in the course of millions of years, could achieve many-fold greater adaptive changes than artificial selection has achieved in only tens of years. I have shown in my book that such extrapolations are ill founded because breeding experiments, such as those giving wheat greater protein content or vegetables greater size, result from mutations that disable repressor genes. The conclusions jumped to were false because they were based on data that could not be extrapolated to long sequences. One cannot gain information from a long sequence of steps that all lose information.​

This is nonsense. Darwin made no assumption about limits of evolution. He made a speculative inference that it might be possible to trace all species back to one or a few common ancestors. But he was quite aware, and scientists have always been aware that the direction of future evolution is always constrained by a species' past history of evolution. That is something that creationists never seem to grasp.

Furthermore, until the DNA coding was cracked, biologists were restricted to morphological clues about mutations. And they were looking for beneficial changes, not information.

Spetner seems to think he has made an important point by showing that some changes are due to the disabling of repressor genes. All he has shown is that sometimes it is more advantageous to have less information. This is no case at all against natural selection which is what the scientists were looking for. So he shouldn't call that jumping to conclusions. Natural selection was at work favouring a mutation which -- even though it decreased information---increased fitness. The conclusion the scientists jumped to was valid for their frame of reference.

btw, it also does not make the case that no new information is ever added to the genome. Only that it was not added in this instance.

Finally, in his answer to the second part of the original question, he admits that: "There is just not enough known yet about the functions of all the DNA sequences to meaningfully quantify the information properly."

If there is not enough known yet to quantify the information properly, then there is no way to determine whether it can increase or has increased. Case closed.

http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp

I just want to comment on one item in the Editors note in this article.

Both of these highly qualified scientists explain why information must be understood on a number of levels, rather than a simplistic statistics-only level.

Emphasis added.

This is ridiculous. This sort of measurement is necessarily statistical. Information can be understood on many levels. But one cannot speak of "no new information" or "no increase in information" without quantifying the information into units which can then be handled mathematically. No matter which "level" of information you are speaking of (DNA sequences, gene or protein functionality, organismic morphology, etc.) once you have quantified the information, you are dealing with statistics. Without statistics you have no way of recognizing the degree to which the information has change/increased/decreased.

In fact, it was by using statistics that Spetner made his point about the enzyme in the other article, showing that the mutated enzyme had lost information through reduced specificity. (Note again, that in its environment, this still increased fitness.)