"no new information"

[pureone]

Why is there a claim of no new information in DNA when there is evidence for viral transfection and bacterial uptake of plasmids?

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Because they they can't tell a plasmid from a plasma from a plaza.

 

[pureone]

Because they they can't tell a plasmid from a plasma from a plaza.

gah? Bah? what do you mean and who can't?

 

[Jet Black]

gah? Bah? what do you mean and who can't?

he means them.

the problem is that anti-evolution people don't know what information is. it has probably been drowned out by all the noise from creationists.

 

[pureone]

I meant the claim that there is not new genetic information being added to the genome. Considering the thread of ERV's and viral transfection, does it not mean that new info is added to the genome. Plus the plasmid uptake. more new information (at least for that organism)

 

[Gormless]

I meant the claim that there is not new genetic information being added to the genome. Considering the thread of ERV's and viral transfection, does it not mean that new info is added to the genome. Plus the plasmid uptake. more new information (at least for that organism)

To begin with, it is possible to measure information in different ways depending on what one wants to treat information as.

Consider a random sequence 1001101011101011
and an ordered sequence 1111111111111111

If we are interested in compression of data, then the first sequence is far less compressible than the second, so it takes more information to represent it in its most compressed form.

Alternatively we might be dealing with noise and information. The second sequence is more ordered, so is unlikely to contain noise. Noise, being random, lacks information. So in this case there is more information in the latter.

What creationists seem to do is cherry pick from various (contradictory) ideas of information and bolt on nonsensical ideas (duplication doesn't increase information for example). They then use this mishmash to claim that mutation cannot lead to new information. I have even encountered one person argue that the DNA of the people and animals that came of the Ark was more pure (contained more information apparently) and that the "microevolution" of the Ark-Dog into all of todays canines resulted in a decrease in information (the Ark-Dog contained all the information to give rise to today's canines, but a modern dog can only give rise to another modern dog).

In short the "no new information" claim is just another collection of lies and misunderstandings on the part of creationists.

G.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Why is there a claim of no new information in DNA when there is evidence for viral transfection and bacterial uptake of plasmids?

On the creationist side?

Probably a few reasons...

They do not bother keeping up and/or ignore newer scientific finds. Look at the "moon dust" argument that still gets used sometimes, Nasa found the mistake in calculations in the late 60's yet AiG only got around to it in the early 90's and some groups still have not admited that the original figures were in error.

Some creationists are afraid that id evolution did occur then that proves the Bible a lie, even though there are many T/E's that would dissagree. They do not seem to be afraid to lie about the facts if it supports their position.

 

[Vance]

Haven't the YEC's shifted to some type of "no NET gain" position? Not sure what they mean by "net" though.

 

[Ben_Hur]

What is the "moon dust" argument?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

What is the "moon dust" argument?

That there is not enough dust on the moon for it to be old, it started back in the 60's when a number cruncher at Nasa miscalculated the dust influx based on some bad data in the preperations to put man on the moon. The mistake was quickly found and corrected at Nasa, but creationist groups latched onto the idea and it wasn't until the early 90's that an article ran in a creationist magazine that they finaly came to the same conclusion that Nasa did almost 30 years prior, the original calculations were bad. Aig and a few other less radical creationist groups have stopped using the argument, but many still do.

 

[Vance]

And the point is that they still do EVEN THOUGH they now know it to be a false argument. Some, like Hovind, have basically said that he has such arguments in his books and tapes and seminar materials and he is not going to change all of that every time some new piece of evidence comes up calling something into question. I can guarantee you that he doesn't make this qualification known to those who buy his stuff, that is for sure!

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

gah? Bah? what do you mean and who can't?

Who = the literal creationist

What = They have no clue what they're talking about. "Information" is tossed about in such a vague manner that it is meaningless.

 

[lucaspa]

Why is there a claim of no new information in DNA when there is evidence for viral transfection and bacterial uptake of plasmids?

Because the anti-evolutionists are looking for a "gap" that evolution supposedly won't cover and into which they can insert God.

If you look at the claims of creationists, they have been retreating over the years. First was the claim of "no new species". Well, the evidence is overwhelming for new species. Then was the claim of "no macroevolution". Since macroevolution is speciation, that too has gone down the tubes.

So then the claim was "no new kinds or no species across kinds". But since creationists can't define "kinds" and all of their definitions either are contradicted by speciation or have humans being "variation within a kind", that too has gone by the board.

Now, with Intelligent Design, the idea is to detect "design" (manufacture by an intelligence) by looking at the "information" in the organism. To make this work, IDers have to declare that information can only arise by intelligent input.

Gormless did an excellent job of dealing with the problem from the standpoint of "what is information". On the other side, a major IDer -- William Dembski -- has shown that information arises from selection. Guess what? Does natural selection ring a bell? Selection also happens in chemical reactions. So new information can come from both chemistry and NS.

In DNA, new information is actually a two-step process:
1. Increase the amount of DNA. This is akin to copying pages in a book and adding the copies to the book.
2. Natural selection to alter the copied text to something new.

If you look carefully, creationists will play what I call the shell game and switch between these two, claiming that neither one can make new information. By themselves, they can't. Together, they do. Watch for the shell game and call them on it when you see it.

 

[pureone]

Gormless did an excellent job of dealing with the problem from the standpoint of "what is information". On the other side, a major IDer -- William Dembski -- has shown that information arises from selection. Guess what? Does natural selection ring a bell? Selection also happens in chemical reactions. So new information can come from both chemistry and NS.

I don't quite follow this.

In DNA, new information is actually a two-step process:
1. Increase the amount of DNA. This is akin to copying pages in a book and adding the copies to the book.
2. Natural selection to alter the copied text to something new.

Ok. So we get the virus to transfect, that is insert DNA from one host to another and no viral DNA. Hopefully that happens through first horizontal transmission,( i.e exogenous strain) then becoming a vertical transmission, (I.E through the Gametes.)
Now we have extra pages, but it is mostly nonsense, right? we have new text, just too many letters or not the right letters.

then mutations and natural selection play their roles in determining whether or not the info is "good" right?

So there is new info being added to the genome. It does happen frequently, but since the most transmission is horizontal and doesn't change cell funtion we don't notice.

If you look carefully, creationists will play what I call the shell game and switch between these two, claiming that neither one can make new information. By themselves, they can't. Together, they do. Watch for the shell game and call them on it when you see it.

But isn't info added by what I just described? Sorry if I'm not catching the shell game...

 

[lucaspa]

Ok. So we get the virus to transfect, that is insert DNA from one host to another and no viral DNA. Hopefully that happens through first horizontal transmission,( i.e exogenous strain) then becoming a vertical transmission, (I.E through the Gametes.)
Now we have extra pages, but it is mostly nonsense, right? we have new text, just too many letters or not the right letters.

I was thinking more of gene and chromosome duplication as errors in copying DNA. Here the extra pages have the same info as the original. Same text. But they are not needed because the original genes are still there. Therefore any changes in the duplicated DNA can be new text.

All 14 types of collagen have arisen thru gene duplication of the original gene. The 18 types of interleukin seem to have come the same way.

The viral transmission seems to be pretty minor form of new info.

then mutations and natural selection play their roles in determining whether or not the info is "good" right?

Mutations give new DNA sequences with new activity. Natural selection decides whether the new activity is useful or not.

So there is new info being added to the genome. It does happen frequently, but since the most transmission is horizontal and doesn't change cell funtion we don't notice.

Every time you undergo selection of an allele, that's still new information. So adding info is very common because that is what selection does.

Now, an example of new info arising from a previous gene even without gene duplication we have:

5: J Bacteriol 1999 Jun;181(11):3341-50. Isolation and characterization of mutations in Bacillus subtilis that allow spore germination in the novel germinant D-alanine. Paidhungat M, Setlow P

Bacillus subtilis spores break their metabolic dormancy through a process called germination. Spore germination is triggered by specific molecules called germinants, which are thought to act by binding to and stimulating spore receptors. Three homologous operons, gerA, gerB, and gerK, were previously proposed to encode germinant receptors because inactivating mutations in those genes confer a germinant-specific defect in germination. To more definitely identify genes that encode germinant receptors, we isolated mutants whose spores germinated in the novel germinant D-alanine, because such mutants would likely contain gain-of-function mutations in genes that encoded preexisting germinant receptors. Three independent mutants were isolated, and in each case the mutant phenotype was shown to result from a single dominant mutation in the gerB operon. Two of the mutations altered the gerBA gene, whereas the third affected the gerBB gene. These results suggest that gerBA and gerBB encode components of the germinant receptor. Furthermore, genetic interactions between the wild-type gerB and the mutant gerBA and gerBB alleles suggested that the germinant receptor might be a complex containing GerBA, GerBB, and probably other proteins. Thus, we propose that the gerB operon encodes at least two components of a multicomponent germinant receptor.

Notice the bolded parts. Three different mutations in the same gene -- gerB operon -- give the ability for the B. subtillus to germinate in D-alanine. In an environment with D-alanine in it, this would give reproductive success to these mutants and they would be selected for.

Now, is this new information or not? The old ability to germinate doesn't seem to have been lost, but a new ability gained. I'd say it's an increase in information, but we don't have any more genetic material than we had before.

 

[lucaspa]

As to selection and information. The general formula for information -log2(M/N) where log2 is logarithm to the base 2, N is the number of possible choices, and M is the number actually chosen. So, say you are a telegraph operator and you choose between a dot and a dash. So the formula is -log2(1/2) and you have an increase of 1 bit of information.

Now, apply this to some examples in natural selection:
1. In a population, there are 4 offspring born but selection eliminates 3 and only one reproduces. So we have N = 4 and M = 1. -log(2) (M/N) = -log(2) (1/4) = -(-2) = 2. We have gained 2 "bits" of information in this generation. Selection does increase information.

2. Let's take a more radical example. An antibiotic kills 95% of the population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100, M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) = -(-4.3) = 4.3. Now information has increased 4.3 "bits". The more severe the selection, the greater the increase in information.

3. Let's take a less severe example. A selection pressure such that of 100 individuals, 99 survive to reproduce. -log(2) (99/100) = -log(2) (.99) = - (-0.01) = 0.01.
So now we have only an increase of 0.01 "bits" in this one generation due to selection. But remember, selection is cumulative. Take this over 1,000 generations and we have an increase of 10 "bits". Now, Nilsson and Pelger have estimated, using conservative parameters, that it would take 364,000 generations to evolve an eye. D-E Nilsson and S Pelger, A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. 256: 53-58, 1994. Taking that over our calculations shows that the eye represents an increase of 3,640 "bits" of information.

Finally, note that selection must result in an increase of information by Dembski's equation. Any fraction always has a negative logarithm. With the negative sign in front of the logarithm (-log) that means that the value for information must be positive as long as selection is operative. The only way to get loss of information is for the number of individuals that reproduce (M) to be greater than the number born (N). This is obviously not possible.

 

[pureone]

Hmm, ok. let me have a few days to think about this. just need to let it sink in..

Why do you call viral transmission a minor form of info? if the retrovirus packages the equivalent of say a minimum of code which equals the gag, pol and env (possibly src) then that is actually quite a bit. Am I missing that it is the RNA form so it doesnt get included in the DNA?
And would not bacterophages give new info for bacteria.

What I am wondering is then how has the new DNA info been added as evolution progressed. the actual bases. the chromosomes themselves. I can't recall this from my classes. I don't think this was covered, even in my genetics classes.

 

[lucaspa]

Why do you call viral transmission a minor form of info? if the retrovirus packages the equivalent of say a minimum of code which equals the gag, pol and env (possibly src) then that is actually quite a bit. Am I missing that it is the RNA form so it doesnt get included in the DNA?
And would not bacterophages give new info for bacteria.

Because for multicellular organisms the virus has to insert the code into a gamete that is eventually going to be fertilized. That is unlikely to happen. You pointed this out yourself. It is much more likely for a virus to insert DNA into a somatic cell or, more commonly, simply keep it's DNA/RNA separate and use the cell's machinery to make more viruses.

What I am wondering is then how has the new DNA info been added as evolution progressed. the actual bases. the chromosomes themselves. I can't recall this from my classes. I don't think this was covered, even in my genetics classes.

I told you: gene and chromosome duplication. Copying DNA is not error proof. And a chromosome is simply one long chain of DNA. So the enzymes make 2 copies of a chromosome instead of one. Or they are copying one strand and they make two copies in a row of one gene.

There are also translocations, where one chromosome is being copied, the copying process terminates early, and the partially copied strand is then attached to a nearby chromosome. Now you still have two copies of the genes in the translocated part, but they are now on different chromosomes. Sometimes the fragment can be attached backwards, reversing the sequence of bases if the section is transcribed -- making all new proteins.

 

[pureone]

Thank you. Sorry, it takes a little time for me to really understand some things.

 

[Vance]

I don't even bother when it gets to that point of detail . . .