Atheists Threaten to Sue Over Sign

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Shades

Because mutations have never increased the amount of genetic information available. There is loss of information, variation, or copies of genetic information but nothing that actually added information. That's why mutations have a set limit and macro-evolution (above the species level) isn't possible.

That's completely false; there are lots of mutations that add information. See for example http://www.newscientist.com/article/...formation.html

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Shades

Because mutations have never increased the amount of genetic information available. There is loss of information, variation, or copies of genetic information but nothing that actually added information. That's why mutations have a set limit and macro-evolution (above the species level) isn't possible.

This is your opinion as a geneticist?

All organisms have a genetic limit of 'information' that cannot be changed. Even after mutation and micro evolution? Hundreds, perhaps thousands of years of change, which you've agreed to, will not change this limit, is this what you are saying...?

[Shades]

Originally Posted by Daradon

All organisms have a genetic limit of 'information' that cannot be changed.

Bravo, now you're finally starting to understand.

[Shades]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

That's completely false; there are lots of mutations that add information. See for example http://www.newscientist.com/article/...formation.html

Did you google and copy and paste the first thing that popped up?

Did you even bother to read the examples used?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Shades

Bravo, now you're finally starting to understand.

My interpretation of his post is that he was asking you to verify if that was your position, not that he was making that claim himself.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Shades

Bravo, now you're finally starting to understand.

That was the question of you I was asking, thanks for taking it out of context.

Just for a small example, those with down syndrome in the human species have an extra chromosome. So wouldn't that mean they have extra 'information' as you put it?

Or maybe you meant extra genes, extra protiens, which also have been proven to change through change in generations. Mutations, both natural and 'unnatural'.

The point I brought you into, is you have no idea what your talking about. Yes those changes exist. You just can't perceive them in your small limited experience.

Genetic material, 'information', and the 'capacity, for it does change. Sorry.

[Textcritic]

It seems to me, Shades, that this latest, rather tired quip about the quantity of information requires a more rigorous definition. What do you mean by "information" in this context? Is this genetic material? specific chemicals/compounds of life?

I am certainly no expert, but I am a confirmed subscriber to evolution after having spent most of my life as a young-earth creationist. In the course of my own personal quest, it seems to me that "information" is simply another anomalous term that creationists / IDers use to obfuscate the data. Isn't "information" in the context of biology a matter of gene sequencing? And if this is the case, then the introduction of new "information" is not an issue, given that it amounts on a physical level to nothing more than the rearrangement of genetic material.

Can someone confirm or correct, and provide a more authoritative account of this?

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It seems to me, Shades, that this latest, rather tired quip about the quantity of information requires a more rigorous definition. What do you mean by "information" in this context? Is this genetic material? specific chemicals/compounds of life?

I am certainly no expert, but I am a confirmed subscriber to evolution after having spent most of my life as a young-earth creationist. In the course of my own personal quest, it seems to me that "information" is simply another anomalous term that creationists / IDers use to obfuscate the data. Isn't "information" in the context of biology a matter of gene sequencing? And if this is the case, then the introduction of new "information" is not an issue, given that it amounts on a physical level to nothing more than the rearrangement of genetic material.

Can someone confirm or correct, and provide a more authoritative account of this?

Pretty much.

An insertion mutation is adding new genetic material, so I would consider that an increase in information. A frameshift mutation can result in completely different gene expression - again new information. Duplication can affect protein function.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

Pretty much.

An insertion mutation is adding new genetic material, so I would consider that an increase in information. A frameshift mutation can result in completely different gene expression - again new information. Duplication can affect protein function.

So, what do we mean by "information" in a biologocal context?

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Shades

Did you even bother to read the examples used?

Yes; I would consider a mutation that changes a 1 chambered heart to a 2-chambered heart, or a mutation that results in a completely new protein that provides protection from retroviruses (2 of the examples) to be adding new information.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

...An insertion mutation is adding new genetic material, so I would consider that an increase in information. A frameshift mutation can result in completely different gene expression - again new information. Duplication can affect protein function.

I think I understand what "duplication" is, but could you explain "insertion mutation" and "frameshift mutation"? What are these and how do they occur?

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Shades

Because mutations have never increased the amount of genetic information available. There is loss of information, variation, or copies of genetic information but nothing that actually added information. That's why mutations have a set limit and macro-evolution (above the species level) isn't possible.

Not sure I 100% understand where we are (I skipped like 40 posts as I'm on lunch break), but isn't macro-evolution the sum of many micro-evolutions? Or are you talking about the number of genomes (which I'm probably not familiar enough to discuss)?

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think I understand what "duplication" is, but could you explain "insertion mutation" and "frameshift mutation"? What are these and how do they occur?

Insertion is a new piece of DNA being added. Duplication is an existing chunk being copied. A frameshift mutation occurs when a piece of DNA is added or lost, changing the "reading frame". Nucleotides are read in groups of 3, so any addition or deletion of a number of nucleotides not divisible by 3 completely changes the translation (in most cases this is bad for the organism, but in some cases can result in something completely new).

For example if the gene sequence is originally G-A-C-T-G-A, it is read as "GAC" and "TGA". If another nucleotide is inserted at the beginning making it something like C-G-A-C-T-G-A, the first 2 sequences are "CGA" and "CTG", completely different than the original translation.

(Hopefully my explanation isn't too confusing; some of my genetics is a bit rusty since really the only genetics I do these days is looking at chemically-induced mutations leading to cancer).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

...(Hopefully my explanation isn't too confusing; some of my genetics is a bit rusty since really the only genetics I do these days is looking at chemically-induced mutations leading to cancer).

That is very helpful, thank you.

So, what you are essentially saying is that the accumulation of "information" is something that occurs specifically with the arrangement / insertion / elimination of nucleotides? If that is true, then essentially information is primarily a chemical matter, which seems in my mind to go a long way in debunking creationists' counter arguments.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Shades

Because mutations have never increased the amount of genetic information available.

That's not really true, depending on what you mean by information.

As others have mentioned, "information" is often just an obfuscating word used so the details don't have to be examined.

The information in the DNA is the DNA itself, there's no abstraction or arbitrary representation in DNA, so it's not truly a code. It's not a set of instructions in the way a code is a set of instructions, the DNA is the thing that happens. Mutations which add or change the DNA itself can add or change the proteins that get expressed, and what proteins get expressed is entirely what determine what the organism is.

A mutation duplicates a gene, further mutations change that gene so it creates a new novel protein that allows the organism to metabolize a new food source that it could not before, bam new "information".

This has been done in the lab.

Shubin's book covers this to some degree.

Originally Posted by Shades

There is loss of information, variation, or copies of genetic information but nothing that actually added information.

These can result in new proteins being produced, which will change the organism. By any meaningful definition that's added information.

Originally Posted by Shades

That's why mutations have a set limit and macro-evolution (above the species level) isn't possible.

It doesn't follow. Even if mutations didn't exist that introduced new DNA into the strand, it still does not follow that mutations have a set limit, since there's nothing to stop a mutation from showing up in a place and changing what's being expressed there.

How many mutations do you think you have from your parents' DNA?

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think I understand what "duplication" is, but could you explain "insertion mutation" and "frameshift mutation"? What are these and how do they occur?

Ashartus covered it, but here's a link I like which explains it too:

http://www.genetichealth.com/g101_changes_in_dna.shtml

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If that is true, then essentially information is primarily a chemical matter, which seems in my mind to go a long way in debunking creationists' counter arguments.

That's why they go on about "information", it puts a new ill-defined concept into the mix that can be used to make claims without any real support.

Ultimately the DNA just results in the creation of many different molecules which all float around reacting with other molecules.

People think of DNA as a blueprint, but it's not.

A good example is one experiment where during the development of an embryo they took a patch of skin from the front of the animal and grafted it onto the back. Big deal right? Well during development the nerves that normally grew out to go to that patch of skin turned around and started growing towards the back!

It's not the blueprint that determined where the nerves grew, the skin itself was creating a chemical signal (determined by its DNA) that triggered behaviour in other cells (determined by their DNA).

I think it's that blueprint mental model that actually makes it difficult to understand how evolution can actually produce the kinds of changes it does.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

That's why they go on about "information", it puts a new ill-defined concept into the mix that can be used to make claims without any real support.

Ultimately the DNA just results in the creation of many different molecules which all float around reacting with other molecules.

People think of DNA as a blueprint, but it's not.

If this is indeed the case, then it does pose a serious problem when it comes to conveying this sort of information to the general public. Even in the link you provided—which was very helpful, and much appreciated—the analogous description of a gene as a "sentence" that conveys "instructions" is misleading. I am wondering if the misconception that the general public has developed with regards to DNA and genetics was inadvertently caused by the process through which the science community chose to describe these elements: the decision to attach letters to individual nucleotides in a sequence has provided for the incorrect assumption that DNA is a "language"; by its very description as a "code" (certainly a telling indicator of the limits of our own language), the false impression that genes amount to the accumulation of biological "information" is a natural conclusion at which to arrive.

[zuluking]

I also think that atheists suing over the sign is silly.

[photon]

Scientists themselves will refer to "genetic code" or "instructions" or whatever, even textbooks probably use that kind of language, so yeah they make their own bed in a way.

It's like any other area of highly specialized study, any language you use is going to be burdened with meanings either irrelevant or even misleading. How often have we had to tell people about the word "theory" in science vs. general usage?

Science communication does need to improve and not using loaded words or trying to explain the meaning of the word in the right context is important, but ultimately I think it's just a case of things are complex, there's a reason why it takes a long time to truly understand some things.

But on the other hand if someone rejects the conclusions of science and scientists and believes in a 6000 year old earth and that all life is a result of special creation, then using different words or explaining definitions isn't going to help much. The foundation of a YEC's beliefs isn't in understanding of the science.

Then again maybe better communication will result in better understanding and will increase cognitive dissonance and result in more willingness to change beliefs.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, what you are essentially saying is that the accumulation of "information" is something that occurs specifically with the arrangement / insertion / elimination of nucleotides? If that is true, then essentially information is primarily a chemical matter, which seems in my mind to go a long way in debunking creationists' counter arguments.

Sort of, but there's a lot more to it than just the DNA sequence. There's enzymes (proteins that catalyze reactions) that replicate the DNA; enzymes that transcribe the DNA to RNA which an enzyme then translates to amino acids, which are sometimes then folded, refolded, and altered by other enzymes.

"Accumulation of information" in your example can also occur through transfer of DNA through multiple different sources. Bacteria, for example, "mate" DNA in several different ways from individual to individual, strain to strain, and species to species. Oncoviruses (retroviruses that can cause cancer) can sometimes "kidnap" some of your host DNA when they're replicating and reinsert it when they infect the next cell or victim.

There's millions of different ways for "information" (DNA) to be accumulated in nature. We exploit it every single day where I work.

The enzyme that replicates DNA in humans has an error rate of approximately 1 nucleotide every 10^12; our genome is about 10^6. It is pretty reliable and accurate; however things happen all the time that cause it to change, like what Ashartus works on - mutagens in the environment are everywhere. UV light is one of the easiest to identify - and we get exposed to it all the time.

The enzyme that replicates RNA (the genomic material) in viruses like polio, respiratory syncytial virus, SARS, has an error rate that introduces one error per replication per genome; HIV is about one per 10 genomes - so if you can imagine a high-pressure situation like antivirals would bottleneck the virus so that only beneficial mutations will survive, then it's easy to see how organisms can evolve quickly. Project that same idea to a larger species with a slower replication time, and over a far larger length of time, and it's not hard to see how evolution produces changes over time.

The thing that ID proponents can't imagine is the enormous length of time that evolution takes and how long we have had to evolve. But arguing with ID proponents is like arguing with a brick wall. You get about the same level of intelligent arguments.

Originally Posted by photon

Scientists themselves will refer to "genetic code" or "instructions" or whatever, even textbooks probably use that kind of language, so yeah they make their own bed in a way.

It is a "code". I don't see what the issue is. Three nucleotides = one amino acid (or not, depending on the codon). It's invariant, except in some circumstances where organisms have evolved to either misread, or miscode, or "interpret" the codon differently. If ID people are going to try to use that for their arguments, by all means, go ahead. They don't know what they're talking about anyway, so I don't care.

I have a chart sitting 2 feet from me right now that has the "genetic code" on it. I use it every day!