What did it all started with?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fundamentally there is no distinction. If we are talking about individual bits of digital information, this applies to DNA or computer data.

They happen to share a similar symbolic code convention, but obviously information can also exist in ink on paper, lines in the sand, or alphabet soup.

And all of these can be used to represent the same information, e.g. a line of text.

i.e. the information itself is distinct from any particular medium it is stored in.

You didn't answer my question.

Define information in a biological sense.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What units are you using to measure this information gain?

As above, today we can objectively quantify genetic information in digital bits, (quaternary v binary)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You didn't answer my question.

Define information in a biological sense.

i.e.

There is no 'biological sense' to define.
Information exists in biology in exactly the same 'sense' as it exists in any other medium.

We can talk about the difference between biological and other mediums used to store information, but there is nothing inherently 'biological' about the information itself. You see the distinction?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

i.e.

There is no 'biological sense' to define.
Information exists in biology in exactly the same 'sense' as it exists in any other medium.

We can talk about the difference between biological and other mediums used to store information, but there is nothing inherently 'biological' about the information itself. You see the distinction?

No, there is a distinction when you say that biological things cannot 'gain' information through the process of evolution. A biological organism is not akin to a computer. It does not have a binaric 1 or 0 type of code. And just saying that a thing loses information is not showing how it loses it or what the information lost is.

So again, define information in a biological sense. If you cannot, then your point is moot.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You seem confused by the concepts of 'information' and 'error' in this context. Let me explain: random mutations (not totally random, but let it pass)

Well that's too important to let pass! according to ToE, mutations are totally random, and that's very much the problem.
( obviously talking about the mutation itself, not mutation rates)

Mutations are random - Understanding Evolution

The mechanisms of evolution — like natural selection and genetic drift — work with the random variation generated by mutation. Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to...

evolution.berkeley.edu

To the rest of your post,

I understand your point about 'new' information, I agree, and by the same semantic arguement, when the exhaust rusts and falls off my car, I have a new car which now goes faster than the 'old' one. So absolutely; random degradation can provide advantages. No argument here so far.

And leave that car to sit in a field for 100 years, and it will continue to acquire all kinds of new information until it is unrecognizable from the original.

But I'm sure you see the practical problem here, when it comes to accounting for bacteria to human macro-evolution, through merely destroying the original functional information.

Change yes, but in the wrong direction.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, there is a distinction when you say that biological things cannot 'gain' information through the process of evolution. A biological organism is not akin to a computer. It does not have a binaric 1 or 0 type of code.

'biological things' cannot gain information which provides the novel biological function represented by the volumes of new proteins required for the Cambrian explosion.- just for example

But again this is a limitation of the medium in absence of creative input, not anything to do with any unique 'biological sense' of information itself, again I'd say there is no such thing to define.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

'biological things' cannot gain information which provides the novel biological function represented by the volumes of new proteins required for the Cambrian explosion.- just for example

But again this is a limitation of the medium in absence of creative input, not anything to do with any unique 'biological sense' of information itself, again I'd say there is no such thing to define.

How would you define a gain of information in a biological context? Can you give an example of what you would expect to see with a gain of information in an organisms DNA?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How would you define a gain of information in a biological context? Can you give an example of what you would expect to see with a gain of information in an organisms DNA?

In terms of random mutation, I'd expect to see exactly what we do see: Nonsense

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

'biological things' cannot gain information which provides the novel biological function represented by the volumes of new proteins required for the Cambrian explosion.- just for example

But again this is a limitation of the medium in absence of creative input, not anything to do with any unique 'biological sense' of information itself, again I'd say there is no such thing to define.

This is the third time I'm going to ask this question. If you do not answer it, I will have to assume that you cannot answer it and thus conclude that you're talking a lot of hot air.

Define information in a biological sense. You're talking about talking there being a connection between evolution and information, so explain how you are defining information in a biological sense.

 

[Larniavc]

As above, today we can objectively quantify genetic information in digital bits, (quaternary v binary)

What are you talking about? How does that answer the question?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

In terms of random mutation, I'd expect to see exactly what we do see: Nonsense

Wait, so you see exactly what you expect and what we do see if there were a gain of information and yet claim there is no gain in information? That doesn't make sense.

However, I suspect maybe you're being a bit coy answering my questions because you know what I'm driving at and you're either unable or unwilling to answer because you a) don't really know enough about this topic or b) know that the actual answer is in contradiction to what you suggest which causes cognitive dissonance.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Wait, so you see exactly what you expect and what we do see if there were a gain of information and yet claim there is no gain in information? That doesn't make sense.

However, I suspect maybe you're being a bit coy answering my questions because you know what I'm driving at and you're either unable or unwilling to answer because you a) don't really know enough about this topic or b) know that the actual answer is in contradiction to what you suggest which causes cognitive dissonance.

Actually I was giving you credit, that you would understand the relationship between 'gain of information' and 'nonsense' as commonly used in genetic studies relating to the addition of new genetic information.

If not I am happy to elaborate:

An insertion mutation is a gain of information, in the Shannon sense at least

e.g.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
The quick brown fox jdumps over the lazy dog

The information volume here has increased, but the specificity of the information has decreased, (we don't know if the fox is jumping or dumping )

But digital information systems like DNA are far more sensitive to the functional information being destroyed entirely:
DNA uses codons, groups of three nucleotides as a way to use 4 bases to code for 20 amino acids.
Very much like computers use ASCII code, groups of 16 bits, as a way to use 2 bases to code for 100+ characters.

So in practice, inserting one extra bit of information in the ASCII version of the sentence, would produce something more like

The quick brown fox jiSDh&d_+8$gIDsK#-~>yU

Because all the information following the insertion is now effectively scrambled- because of the shift in the frame of reference for each 16 bit sequence of ASCII code. The exact same principle applies in DNA frame of reference shifts.

And this is exactly why geneticists refer to insertion/ frame shift mutations as 'nonsense' mutations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What are you talking about? How does that answer the question?

DNA represents a quaternary digital code, (base 4 v base 2 in our digital binary code)

Each of these bases is represented by a nucleotide,

Wiki:
"Nucleotides are organic molecules composed of a nitrogenous base, a pentose sugar and a phosphate. They serve as monomeric units of the nucleic acid polymers – deoxyribonucleic acid and ribonucleic acid, both of which are essential biomolecules within all life-forms on Earth."

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Actually I was giving you credit, that you would understand the relationship between 'gain of information' and 'nonsense' as commonly used in genetic studies relating to the addition of new genetic information.

If not I am happy to elaborate:

An insertion mutation is a gain of information, in the Shannon sense at least

e.g.

The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
The quick brown fox jdumps over the lazy dog

The information volume here has increased, but the specificity of the information has decreased, (we don't know if the fox is jumping or dumping )

But digital information systems like DNA are far more sensitive to the functional information being destroyed entirely:
DNA uses codons, groups of three nucleotides as a way to use 4 bases to code for 20 amino acids.
Very much like computers use ASCII code, groups of 16 bits, as a way to use 2 bases to code for 100+ characters.

So in practice, inserting one extra bit of information in the ASCII version of the sentence, would produce something more like

The quick brown fox jiSDh&d_+8$gIDsK#-~>yU

Because all the information following the insertion is now effectively scrambled- because of the shift in the frame of reference for each 16 bit sequence of ASCII code. The exact same principle applies in DNA frame of reference shifts.

And this is exactly why geneticists refer to insertion/ frame shift mutations as 'nonsense' mutations.

Cool. So, you see "nonsense mutations" and you'd expect to see "nonsense mutations" if there were a gain of information... and yet you claim there is no gain of information. Make it make sense.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Cool. So, you see "nonsense mutations" and you'd expect to see "nonsense mutations" if there were a gain of information... and yet you claim there is no gain of information. Make it make sense.

Well it's the old semantic confusion

'the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" is information in the technical and practical sense
"jiSDh&d_+8$gIDsK#-~>yU" is information in a technical sense, not a practical sense.

Some might define this as specifying, specified or functional information v Shannon or nonsense information.

Of course in the practical sense DNA requires the former; specified, functional information, specific to building new proteins & organs.

So it should really go without saying that were talking about the functional variety when we are talking about what is required for macroevolution.
But I try to remember to include 'functional' before 'information' to avoid that confusion.

We can still talk about non functional information being added as above, nobody is denying that, we just have to likewise recognize that it is non functional.

 

[Shemjaza]

Well it's the old semantic confusion

'the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" is information in the technical and practical sense
"jiSDh&d_+8$gIDsK#-~>yU" is information in a technical sense, not a practical sense.

Some might define this as specifying, specified or functional information v Shannon or nonsense information.

Of course in the practical sense DNA requires the former; specified, functional information, specific to building new proteins & organs.

So it should really go without saying that were talking about the functional variety when we are talking about what is required for macroevolution.
But I try to remember to include 'functional' before 'information' to avoid that confusion.

We can still talk about non functional information being added as above, nobody is denying that, we just have to likewise recognize that it is non functional.

How do you objectively measure function?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How do you objectively measure function?

If you can see, hear, breath, and have a pulse, these are biological functions which rely on genetic information specific to those functions.

Where we can identify a mutation which causes a loss of function, that's an objective measure for a functional gene

 

[Shemjaza]

If you can see, hear, breath, and have a pulse, these are biological functions which rely on genetic information specific to those functions.

Where we can identify a mutation which causes a loss of function, that's an objective measure for a functional gene

Those all imply a binary of working or not working and that's not close to universal in biology. For a sense you could have a situation that specilisation and accuracy necessarily reduce range... like reducing the frequency range of hearing but increasing the precision.

There's other traits that are traditionally described as a loss, but could be instead described as an enhancement.

Seals have five fingers on each limb, but instead of having little digits like other carnivora to help grip the ground, they've got strong supple skin flaps to make them fast and agile in the water,

All your examples of mutation changes seem ignore the existence of mutations that cause repetitions, meaning the original use could potentially continue even in mutations of essential for life sections.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Those all imply a binary of working or not working and that's not close to universal in biology. For a sense you could have a situation that specilisation and accuracy necessarily reduce range... like reducing the frequency range of hearing but increasing the precision.

There's other traits that are traditionally described as a loss, but could be instead described as an enhancement.

Seals have five fingers on each limb, but instead of having little digits like other carnivora to help grip the ground, they've got strong supple skin flaps to make them fast and agile in the water,

All your examples of mutation changes seem ignore the existence of mutations that cause repetitions, meaning the original use could potentially continue even in mutations of essential for life sections.

I generally agree with all that, but it's again highlighting the difference between microevolution/loss/ recombination of existing genes, and the gains of new functional information required for macroevolution.

Seals lost the extra definition and specialization required for agile limbs and toes which allow a heavy animal to move nimbly on land.
Just as Penguins swim better than flying birds, but clearly wings require a lot more specificity of design to fly, than they do to simply paddle in water..

That's why a penguin is not an example of an intermediate evolutionary stage towards flight, but the exact opposite
just as a seal would be a devolution of an agile land animal, back into the water, back to an earlier, simpler configuration

It's essentially the same example as polar bears losing the ability to produce pigment in fur.

Sure all represent an advantage in niche environments, but losing something you used to have, doesn't explain how you acquired it.

 

[Shemjaza]

I generally agree with all that, but it's again highlighting the difference between microevolution/loss/ recombination of existing genes, and the gains of new functional information required for macroevolution.

Seals lost the extra definition and specialization required for agile limbs and toes which allow a heavy animal to move nimbly on land.
Just as Penguins swim better than flying birds, but clearly wings require a lot more specificity of design to fly, than they do to simply paddle in water..

That's why a penguin is not an example of an intermediate evolutionary stage towards flight, but the exact opposite
just as a seal would be a devolution of an agile land animal, back into the water, back to an earlier, simpler configuration

It's essentially the same example as polar bears losing the ability to produce pigment in fur.

Sure all represent an advantage in niche environments, but losing something you used to have, doesn't explain how you acquired it.

But the thing is that it isn't a loss, they still have the bone structure of their fingers, but now they work to shape and move their flippers.

Do you have any justification for why mutations are limited in the degree of change they can implement to a lineage of life forms? (Especially when there is fossil and genetic evidence for the evolution and diversification these lineages.)