Information: A problem for evolution?

[Delta One]

Hello gluadys,

I'm not an expert in the field of information science, but I do know only a little bit about it.

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

My understanding is that previously unseen information may be DNA "sentences" that never existed before in that particular species/kind/creature. As I outlined, the addition of feathers on reptiles would require a massive amount of new unpreviously seen sentences of DNA coding that would enable reptiles to produce feathers. You might wish to send a question to the editor of AiG voicing your confusion about their use of the term "information" and ask them to answer as simplistically as possible.

As for your questions relating to AiG's response to the article, I'm not the best person to be asking since I'm not totally sure. I'd have to re-read the article again. I probably should have warned you that they placed brackets and in them they wrote "technical" and "semi-technical" for the respective articles. I'll get back to after when I have time about this.

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.)

As I have explained with the example of the wingless beetles on a windy island -- having no wings means you won't as easily be blown into the sea and drown -- which is a survival benefit, even though it has lost the specific sentences of DNA which allow for the (full and or proper) production of wings.

I'm sorry that I can't be of more help at the moment...

Your brother in Christ,
"Delta One".

 

[gluadys]

Hello gluadys,

I'm not an expert in the field of information science, but I do know only a little bit about it.

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

My understanding is that previously unseen information may be DNA "sentences" that never existed before in that particular species/kind/creature.

But what do these "sentences" consist of if not differences in the sequence of nucleotide triplets coding for amino acids? What other biological expression is analogous to "sentences"?

As I outlined, the addition of feathers on reptiles would require a massive amount of new unpreviously seen sentences of DNA coding that would enable reptiles to produce feathers.

How do you know the amount of new information would have to be massive? How do you know it could not begin with a slight variation in the process of developing scales?

You might wish to send a question to the editor of AiG voicing your confusion about their use of the term "information" and ask them to answer as simplistically as possible.

I don't think so. I believe they have a vested interest in keeping the meaning of the term as confusing as possible.

As I have explained with the example of the wingless beetles on a windy island -- having no wings means you won't as easily be blown into the sea and drown -- which is a survival benefit, even though it has lost the specific sentences of DNA which allow for the (full and or proper) production of wings.

Sure, same type of example Spetner supplied and subject to the same critique.

I'm sorry that I can't be of more help at the moment...

Your brother in Christ,
"Delta One".

Don't worry about it. I didn't expect that you could, because really, no one, not Spetner or Dembski or Behe has come close to dealing with these issues yet. The concept of complex specified information has not been quantified and may not be quantifiable. We all think we know it when we see it. But that is a very different thing than measuring it.

Nor has it yet been applied successfully to biological substances such as DNA, genes, or organs.

 

[Delta One]

gluadys,

But what do these "sentences" consist of if not differences in the sequence of nucleotide triplets coding for amino acids? What other biological expression is analogous to "sentences"?

I'd have to ask AiG, but they won't respond for at least a week or two (usual response time). I guess that one could think of it as our alphabet as an analogy.
Take the word "sun".

This is kind of like the DNA coding system where they are grouped in triplets.

Consider the sentence, "The sun is a yellow dwarf type star that was created to give light unto the earth."

Here, notice how the sentence describes the function of the sun. I think that the DNA "sentence" of information is similar. It consists of the DNA letters but they are "sentenced" in such a way that they have instructions to describe what to make and how to make it. Reptiles don't have the DNA instructions to tell them how to make feathers, so a few (presumable - fairly intutitive) sentences of DNA (that describe how to make feathers and the characteristics associated with feathers) must be added to the reptile's genome to enable it to create feathers.

If we take out part of the sentence in the above example we may get, the sun is a yellow dwarf star. Notice how this is a reduction in specific information. If we add some letters randomly (which is what natural processes do) then we may get, "The nsu is a yellishw adwardf type sttar that wwast created to givelight upon the marth". Notice how this statement, although it has more letters, it has reduced the information in it. The statement now has no or very little meaning. It's specified complexity has been reduced from the original sentence.

An increase in information might be, "The sun is a yellow dwarf type star that was created by God during the Creation Week to give light upon the earth." Here, we have more specific information, i.e. we know who created it and when. The feather on reptile example may be applied here too, before the reptile did not have the information (or sentences of specific DNA) to allow it to have feathers. This information must be added to the existing genome before it can produce feathers.

I hope that this may clear it up a little bit.

How do you know the amount of new information would have to be massive? How do you know it could not begin with a slight variation in the process of developing scales?

Because feathers are extremely complex and would require quite a lot of DNA instructions to make it. Added onto this problem of acquiring feathers, the reptilian lung is also vastly different to the bird's lung (more complex DNA is required to account for the dramatic change). For example, a human has over 1000 books of 500 pages of DNA information (i.e. sentences of complex DNA that account for various features) while a single celled creature has about only 1 book of 500 pages of DNA information. This means that 999 books of 500 pages of highly complex DNA instructions must be added if one wishes to change a single celled creature into something as complex as a human (which is what evolution proposes). I'm not sure of the exact difference in information required.

These slight variations must be an increase in the specified instructions to allow it to produce feathers. The mathematical probability of random processes getting all the DNA letters in the correct order and combination for a highly complex sentence that codes for the instructions for feather production is very slim. I'm guessing that if it were randomally mathematically possible, like if God were to intervene, for example, then it would not be until all the DNA required to give instructions on how to produce feathers that feathers would be produced, or at least a fair bit of the specified information required.

Sure, same type of example Spetner supplied and subject to the same critique.

Doesn't it make sense though? The beetles lost the specific information (i.e. IMHO, DNA sentences that tell the creature how to produce wings either properly or in part) to produce wings (either in part or properly) and as a result they survived on the windy island.

This is a little bit confusing! I'll have to contact AiG to explain it clearly yet simplistically.

This whole response is IMHO and probably will be incorrect in some parts.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys,

But what do these "sentences" consist of if not differences in the sequence of nucleotide triplets coding for amino acids? What other biological expression is analogous to "sentences"?

I'd have to ask AiG, but they won't respond for at least a week or two (usual response time). I guess that one could think of it as our alphabet as an analogy.
Take the word "sun".

This is kind of like the DNA coding system where they are grouped in triplets.

Consider the sentence, "The sun is a yellow dwarf type star that was created to give light unto the earth."

Here, notice how the sentence describes the function of the sun. I think that the DNA "sentence" of information is similar. It consists of the DNA letters but they are "sentenced" in such a way that they have instructions to describe what to make and how to make it.

If we take out part of the sentence in the above example we may get, the sun is a yellow dwarf star. Notice how this is a reduction in specific information. If we add some letters randomly (which is what natural processes do) then we may get, "The nsu is a yellishw adwardf type sttar that wwast created to givelight upon the marth". Notice how this statement, although it has more letters, it has reduced the information in it. The statement now has no or very little meaning. It's specified complexity has been reduced from the original sentence.

Re-read post 2 in this thread to see why this analogy does not work with DNA sequences. There is no such thing as a garbled DNA codon. You can scramble the nucleotides all you want, and the triplets will still all code for an amino acid.

Reptiles don't have the DNA instructions to tell them how to make feathers, so a few (presumable - fairly intutitive) sentences of DNA (that describe how to make feathers and the characteristics associated with feathers) must be added to the reptile's genome to enable it to create feathers.

Why must the information be added? Why can the existing information not be changed?

See post 2 again where I used the analogy of two similar sentences.

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

Why can dinosaurian DNA not be changed slightly to go from scales to feathers. The first feathers did not have to have all the complexity of modern bird feathers, as they were used for insulation, not flight.

These slight variations must be an increase in the specified instructions to allow it to produce feathers. The mathematical probability of random processes getting all the DNA letters in the correct order and combination for a highly complex sentence that codes for the instructions for feather production is very slim.

What makes you think there is only one correct DNA sequence for making feathers?

Sure, same type of example Spetner supplied and subject to the same critique.

Doesn't it make sense though? The beetles lost the specific information (i.e. IMHO, DNA sentences that tell the creature how to produce wings either properly or in part) to produce wings (either in part or properly) and as a result they survived on the windy island.

The point here is that Spetner is confusing evolution with complexity. This comes from the creationist misconception that evolution = increased complexity and therefore requires increased information. But as we see in these examples, evolution produced adaptation by decreasing complexity/information. There is no necessary correlation between evolution and increasing complexity.

This is not to say that complexity is never increased or information never added. Just to say that evolution and increased complexity are two different concepts and you can get one without the other.

This is a little bit confusing! I'll have to contact AiG to explain it clearly yet simplistically.

Good luck.

 

[shernren]

Consider the sentence, "The sun is a yellow dwarf type star that was created to give light unto the earth."

Here, notice how the sentence describes the function of the sun. I think that the DNA "sentence" of information is similar. It consists of the DNA letters but they are "sentenced" in such a way that they have instructions to describe what to make and how to make it. Reptiles don't have the DNA instructions to tell them how to make feathers, so a few (presumable - fairly intutitive) sentences of DNA (that describe how to make feathers and the characteristics associated with feathers) must be added to the reptile's genome to enable it to create feathers.

The fundamental difference between the English language and the DNA "language" is this: when you "garble" a DNA codon, you don't get a meaningless strand: you get a strand with a different meaning. Here's why.

Let's take the word "sun". If I replace the letter "s" with any other letter, the chances of me getting a new word with meaning is small, but likely. For example, it could become "bun". But you're more likely to come up with something silly like "aun" or "eun". Furthermore, put "bun" back into the sentence:
"The bun is a yellow dwarf type star..." obviously it doesn't make sense.

But the situation is different with DNA. Let's take a codon for isoleucine, ATT. If I changed the first base with a different one, for all possible changes I get a new amino acid:
CTT - leucine
GTT - valine
TTT - phenylalanine

This is completely unlike the situation in English, where "bun" has meaning but "eun" doesn't. The ribosome (which reads the RNA transcribed from DNA to put together amino acids) doesn't lose a beat when the base changes. It just sees a new combination that makes sense to the ribosome as an amino acid (whether or not it makes sense to the organism as a whole ) Furthermore, the amino acid can still be slotted in to form a protein. The protein might not work (an illogical sentence), but it will still be manufacturable. This is unlike in English where "The bun is a yellow dwarf star" is illogical but grammatical, while "The eun is a yellow dwarf star" is completely out. There are no "completely out" sequences. Even when you change something to a stop codon, you get a transcription of all the amino acids before the new "stop".

 

[Delta One]

As I said when we started this debate about information theory, I am not an expert and most of the theory is grayish to me. Like all man made theories, they are fallible and subject to change. Perhaps as more research is done into this area, we may observe some undisputable results.

It was some what enjoyable discussing with you gluadys.
God Bless,
Delta One.

 

[seebs]

While information theory is a comparatively young field, in the current state of that field, claims that evolution can't, or doesn't, "add new information", are simply false. We would need a new theory to make them true.

 

[mythbuster]

As an aside to this thread I would like to insert the idea of transcendency of information.
The words that I am recording here can be written on paper, recorded in our memories (how?), transmitted over the internet to your computers, and stored somewhere in the caverns of this forum's software. This is to say that the stuff of information transcends the medium.
I'll bet that we all agree that one way or another within the nucleus of living cells information exists. But big-brained humans have recorded that information and this information now exists outside of the cell. Therefore this information in nature is also transcendent.
For me the transcendency of information points to an author of information. Moreover in biology I believe that this author is God, the creator of information. The Head Engineer.

 

[shernren]

As I said when we started this debate about information theory, I am not an expert and most of the theory is grayish to me. Like all man made theories, they are fallible and subject to change. Perhaps as more research is done into this area, we may observe some undisputable results.

I don't know much about information theory either. But the gist of the argument many creationists are using is that random changes reduce information content, whereas "macro-evolution" involves an increase in information content, therefore "macro-evolution" can only happen as a result of God's miraculous creation.

However, when random changes happen in the genome, you don't get non-sense immediately - you get a "new sense" (which can often be a nuisance! ) or a different amino acid to code. The situation is different: in most languages, when you change "sun" to "eun" you have no meaning left, but in a codon when you change one base you (don't normally) get no meaning left - you get a new meaning i.e. a new amino acid.

Go read up on DNA transcription and how the cell produces proteins. That beautiful mechanism is a real reason why I don't go all the way to believe in abiogenesis. God may have used evolution, but the basis of life has His fingerprints all over it, I would believe.

 

[gluadys]

As an aside to this thread I would like to insert the idea of transcendency of information.
The words that I am recording here can be written on paper, recorded in our memories (how?), transmitted over the internet to your computers, and stored somewhere in the caverns of this forum's software. This is to say that the stuff of information transcends the medium.
I'll bet that we all agree that one way or another within the nucleus of living cells information exists. But big-brained humans have recorded that information and this information now exists outside of the cell. Therefore this information in nature is also transcendent.
For me the transcendency of information points to an author of information. Moreover in biology I believe that this author is God, the creator of information. The Head Engineer.

Basically, I have no problem with this. I do wonder why you put a ? after memories. Memories are stored in the brain. I suppose you are asking about the process that puts them there, and I can't help with that, but I don't think it is supernatural.

I do note, that although information transcends medium, it always seems to require a medium. That is, it can be transcribed from one medium to another, but cannot, apparently, exist independently of any medium at all. At least not in the world as we know it.

To me, this suggests that in order to put information into this world, God had to transcribe it onto a physical medium. When it comes to genetic information, abiogenesis may one day describe that process.

 

[mythbuster]

I do note, that although information transcends medium, it always seems to require a medium. That is, it can be transcribed from one medium to another, but cannot, apparently, exist independently of any medium at all. At least not in the world as we know it.

yes yes and an alphabet.
shalom

 

[shernren]

eh? point being?

 

[mythbuster]

No point but dialogue.
Back and forth conversation.

shalom

 

[seebs]

If I have a rock, it has dimensions. Are these dimensions information? If so, what's the "medium" for this information?

 

[mythbuster]

If I have a rock, it has dimensions. Are these dimensions information? If so, what's the "medium" for this information?

Shalom.

A rock with dimensions or a pile of leaves is not an example of information!

A symbol set is needed along with a probability structure.

The rock or a pile of leaves has a very low probaility (zero) of occuring but that is not enough.

 

[gluadys]

If I have a rock, it has dimensions. Are these dimensions information? If so, what's the "medium" for this information?

I would say the dimensions are certainly information, as well as many other features of the rock. I am not so certain of the medium for this information.

Once we have processed the information the medium is the neuronal memory structure of the brain.

Part of the processing involved the sensory system, which again, is part of the network of the nervous system.

So then we come to the interface of sensory system and rock. Clearly, the sensory system picked up information about the rock which was transmitted to the brain, so that we could gauge its dimensions and other properties. But can we say the rock itself held the information and transmitted it to our hand/eyes, etc?

We get into epistemological issues that are way beyond me. e.g. does the information we derive from an examination of the rock exist before it is perceived? If not, what generated it and where did it come from?

I find it easier to think of the information as part of the rock. But what do I know?

 

[gluadys]

Shalom.

A rock with dimensions or a pile of leaves is not an example of information!

Why not? Seriously. I don't know why not.


Now, I'd agree right off the bat that it is not complex, specified information. But the whole point of the adjectives is to delineate a sub-set of a larger field called information. Outside the boundaries of CSI, there is still
information that is complex but not specified,
information that is specified but not complex.
Can one also have information that is neither specified nor complex?

In any case, why would the rock not constitute information in some other form than CSI?

Doesn't that make more sense than saying it is not information at all?

A symbol set is needed along with a probability structure.

The rock or a pile of leaves has a very low probaility (zero) of occuring but that is not enough.

Again, I don't understand why you put (zero) after "probability". What does it mean to say the probability of a rock is zero?

Maybe I don't understand something about probability here. To me, a zero probability would be that something cannot exist at all. Yet rocks and piles of leaves manifestly do exist.

Of course, the general statement does not apply to specific instances. That rocks exist does not set a probability that this rock exists. I can see that such a probability would indeed be very low, but if the rock exists, how can the probability of its existence be zero?

What am I missing here?

Also, can you explain the reference to a symbol set?

 

[shernren]

Now, I'd agree right off the bat that it is not complex, specified information.

Actually, a rock represents a whole lot of information. Let's take 1g of pure calcium carbonate. It contains, what, 10^10 electrons? (Off the top of my head: probably more?) Now try encoding all the energy levels of all the electrons in that 1g of calcium carbonate..

 

[gluadys]

Actually, a rock represents a whole lot of information. Let's take 1g of pure calcium carbonate. It contains, what, 10^10 electrons? (Off the top of my head: probably more?) Now try encoding all the energy levels of all the electrons in that 1g of calcium carbonate..

There are times when I am glad to be shown I am wrong.

 

[shernren]

Heh. Thought about that when reading a book about how impossible the Star Trek transporter device is. Even if you could beat Heisenberg, the amount of information required to encode the molecules in 65kg of matter is overwhelming. (And before the IDists step in and misconstrue me, it would be about the same massive amount whether in 65kg of human, bacteria or plain air to start with.) Imagine what havoc network lag would do to "Scotty, beam me up!"

Why? Because information is everywhere.