How can mutations add new information?

This makes no sense and it shows that a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy.

The information that can be expressed by proteins is limited by the genetic code. So no matter how many mutations occur, you will never get any new information. The genetic code codes for 20 amino acids. You can't get any new amino acids because this is how the Intelligent Designer designed the code.

You can get different expressions of proteins but nothing new. These different expressions are limited to the ones that the code allows.

It's like if I write a 500 word paragraph and I say you can mutate the words overtime but the only words that can be read are the words I wrote in the paragraph. I also put in place error correction that will help preserve my words as mutations occur. You will not get any new information. You could get different variations of my paragraph that the code allows.

Say you have a point mutation and on the gene sequence you get A paired with C. Error correction will occur and flip the C to a T and in some cases flip the A to a G. This could chain the Amino Acid on the PP chain and change how the gen is expressed. So eventually you may get Glutamic acid instead of Aspartic acid in the PP chain and get the protein expressed differently.

This isn't new information.

In fact, you can predict what variations can occur based on on the code that was DESIGNED BY INTELLIGENCE. You can just do a straight factorial of 20 which is 2.432902008 E+18 but we know every sequence of amino acids doesn't fold into a protein. This is why you have protein estimates in the human body from 5-10,000 to 10 million.

So the code doesn't allow for new information. Mutations can change or damage the sequence of amino acids in the code just like you can change words in a sentence and get a different sentence BUT THEY'RE STILL WORDS THAT WERE DESIGNED BY INTELLIGENCE.

Look at the sentence, The Model and the Doctor visited the park.

I build a code that allows for mutations but the only words that can be read are the words in the sentence. You will never get any new information. Overtime you may get:

The Model visited the Doctor.

You will never get:

The Model and the Doctor visited Paris and stayed in an AirBNB.

This would be new information. You would never get it though because my intelligence limited what expressions could occur.

What are you trying to say? Are you saying that mutations do not add to, or subtract from the genome? The genome ain't fixed and that's a proven fact.

originally posted by: neoholographic


Look at the sentence, The Model and the Doctor visited the park.

I build a code that allows for mutations but the only words that can be read are the words in the sentence. You will never get any new information. Overtime you may get:

The Model visited the Doctor.

You will never get:

The Model and the Doctor visited Paris and stayed in an AirBNB.

This would be new information. You would never get it though because my intelligence limited what expressions could occur.

If the park was in Paris and I was a concierge at a B and B I might

I am not nearly clever enough for this thread but I am ginger thus I am a mutant, X-Force Ginger level mutant Dark Ginger the movie would never be a flop

Red Hair - an altered version of the MC1R protein

a reply to: neoholographic

But, using your analogy, you could get, "The Doctor visited the Model park". That sentence conveys a totally different message than the original. That is the point of mutations. Changing a few things could completely change the expression of the whole in a different way. That could be a positive advantage or a negative weakness based upon the environment at the time.

ETA: Or, "The Model visited the park Doctor". Yet another variation of the same words, no new ones, yet a completely different message (i.e. information) to the reader.

ETA: Or, "The Model visited the Doctor and the park". Again, another variation of the same words, no new ones, yet another completely different message (i.e. information) to the reader.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: neoholographic

But, using your analogy, you could get, "The Doctor visited the Model park". That sentence conveys a totally different message than the original. That is the point of mutations. Changing a few things could completely change the expression of the whole in a different way. That could be a positive advantage or a negative weakness based upon the environment at the time.

My point exactly!

You can change the expression based on the words that my code allows you to use.

I can give you 50 words and you can make different sentences based on those words but I can go away for a million years and come back knowing that you wouldn't have created anything new. You would be limited to the 50 words I gave you.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: neoholographic

But, using your analogy, you could get, "The Doctor visited the Model park". That sentence conveys a totally different message than the original. That is the point of mutations. Changing a few things could completely change the expression of the whole in a different way. That could be a positive advantage or a negative weakness based upon the environment at the time.

My point exactly!

You can change the expression based on the words that my code allows you to use.

I can give you 50 words and you can make different sentences based on those words but I can go away for a million years and come back knowing that you wouldn't have created anything new. You would be limited to the 50 words I gave you.

But the whole of the message would have many variations. Some might be advantageous and passed along to the next generation. Whereas others might just fizzle out or be completely incoherent. The point of evolution is the WHOLE MESSAGE....not the words. The myriad of combinations provides a HUGE list of variations of the WHOLE which are then at the mercy of the environment at the time to be either propagated or stopped.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Explain how that's new information. Give me an example of this occurring with evolution. Then tell me what's new. There's nothing new only variations allowed by the code.

You're not getting anything new if glycine changes to valine in a PP chain. The genetic code codes for 20 amino acids so you can mutate until you're blue in the face and you will not get a sequence that doesn't include the 20 amino acids allowed by the code.

Please show me some specific evidence of this new information.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Krakatoa

Explain how that's new information. Give me an example of this occurring with evolution. Then tell me what's new. There's nothing new only variations allowed by the code.

You're not getting anything new if glycine changes to valine in a PP system. The genetic code codes for 20 amino acids so you can mutate until you're blue in the face and you will not get a sequence that doesn't include the 20 amino acids allowed by the code.

Please show me some specific evidence of this new information.

Lets look at this from a molecular standpoint.

You have only 3 basic building blocks: Electron, Proton, Neutron.

Depending upon how they are organized, and grouped you get different elements....right? An element is a unit of information.

OK, now, depending upon how you combine those elements, you can get different molecules, right? A molecule is a unit of information.

Depending upon how you group or assemble those differing molecules, you get different compounds. right? A compound is a unit of information.


You are limiting your definition of information to a single very narrow definition. Information is conveyed not only by the building block, but the resulting building made from those blocks.

a reply to: Krakatoa

What?

We're talking about the genetic code and I'm asking for a specific case where new information occurred.

It's not a limited view of information, it's based on the fact that the code only codes for 20 amino acids and regulates the expression of the gene. Variations of this code is all that can exist in nature. It doesn't give you anything new.

If you had a dice universe, the only outcomes that could occur is 2-12. You can get all sorts of different games of craps or different games of Monopoly, but they will all be connected to 2-12 because those are the numbers encoded on the dice by intelligence.

You can roll the dice until the ends of the earth and you will never get a 30 or 52 just 2-12.

Where is the evidence of new information in evolution. Show it to me.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Krakatoa

What?

We're talking about the genetic code and I'm asking for a specific case where new information occurred.

It's not a limited view of information, it's based on the fact that the code only codes for 20 amino acids and regulates the expression of the gene. Variations of this code is all that can exist in nature. It doesn't give you anything new.

If you had a dice universe, the only outcomes that could occur is 2-12. You can get all sorts of different games of craps or different games of Monopoly, but they will all be connected to 2-12 because those are the numbers encoded on the dice by intelligence.

You can roll the dice until the ends of the earth and you will never get a 30 or 52 just 2-12.

Where is the evidence of new information in evolution. Show it to me.

Please tell me, exactly, your definition of "information" in your context. Until then, we cannot have a meaningful conversation and no new information will result.

originally posted by: paraphi
What are you trying to say? Are you saying that mutations do not add to, or subtract from the genome? The genome ain't fixed and that's a proven fact.

He was referring to informatics. He wasn't saying that there is no change, he was saying that there isn't a mechanism that adds new and original information types, ones that have never existed before.

Consider that George Gamow when he figured out the three element codon based the idea on a numerical assumption of informational efficiency within the coding. I.e: there were believed to be about 26 proteins coded for by DNA at the time. He theorized that this probably indicated that the four known bases must have a codon length of greater than a four-squared number of sequences (=16), as that is less than 26 known proteins it could code for, and the next step was to look at four cubed numbers of sequences (=64), which is greater. So assuming that nature did things with efficiency (or selected for efficiency), it indicated that the codon length must be three base pairs.

(Remember also that there are, in the coding, positional indicators - such as start and stop codes - and also some codes do not produce viable proteins. So the 64 number is an absolute upper bound and it is not likely that there are exactly 64 proteins.)

What this also says is that you can't have more than the upper limit. To add new information, in the form of a new and previously 'un-coded for protein', requires that you throw away the whole idea of a three base pair codon length entirely. This would make no mathematical sense and also have no precedent or evidentiality in nature.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Of course you can't show me the evidence LOL!

Look, you could have a Poker universe and each game could have different outcomes. but the only outcomes that can occur is limited to 2,598,960 million combinations.

This limit is determined by the intelligence that created the game Poker.

People confuse information with data.

I can say Susie won game 1, Ed won game 2 and Jenna won game 3. Now I have a data set.

This doesn't create any new information because the the Poker players are limited to the combinations allowed by the intelligence that created Poker.

Poker will never spontaneously evolve into Gin Rummy.

When you try to claim mutations created all of the species that we see, you have to show how these mutations created something outside of the code.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: paraphi
What are you trying to say? Are you saying that mutations do not add to, or subtract from the genome? The genome ain't fixed and that's a proven fact.

He was referring to informatics. He wasn't saying that there is no change, he was saying that there isn't a mechanism that adds new and original information types, ones that have never existed before.

Consider that George Gamow when he figured out the three element codon based the idea on a numerical assumption of informational efficiency within the coding. I.e: there were believed to be about 26 proteins coded for by DNA at the time. He theorized that this probably indicated that the four known bases must have a codon length of greater than a four-squared number of sequences (=16), as that is less than 26 known proteins it could code for, and the next step was to look at four cubed numbers of sequences (=64), which is greater. So assuming that nature did things with efficiency (or selected for efficiency), it indicated that the codon length must be three base pairs.

(Remember also that there are, in the coding, positional indicators - such as start and stop codes - and also some codes do not produce viable proteins. So the 64 number is an absolute upper bound and it is not likely that there are exactly 64 proteins.)

What this also says is that you can't have more than the upper limit. To add new information, in the form of a new and previously 'un-coded for protein', requires that you throw away the whole idea of a three base pair codon length entirely. This would make no mathematical sense and also have no precedent or evidentiality in nature.

Great points!

a reply to: neoholographic

Explain cancer please.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Krakatoa

Of course you can't show me the evidence LOL!

Look, you could have a Poker universe and each game could have different outcomes. but the only outcomes that can occur is limited to 2,598,960 million combinations.

This limit is determined by the intelligence that created the game Poker.

People confuse information with data.

I can say Susie won game 1, Ed won game 2 and Jenna won game 3. Now I have a data set.

This doesn't create any new information because the the Poker players are limited to the combinations allowed by the intelligence that created Poker.

Poker will never spontaneously evolve into Gin Rummy.

When you try to claim mutations created all of the species that we see, you have to show how these mutations created something outside of the code.

Look, you opened this thread in the middle of a conversation, with ZERO source links as a reference for the readers to have an understanding of what exactly you were ranting on about. In addition, since you referenced "intelligent designer" I already know your religious zeal cannot be changed no matter how much data is presented to you.

You are asking a loaded question that has been intentionally limited to only a single answer.

It's a trap, I knew it. but wanted to play. Yet, you seem to think you won something here, when it's clear you rigged the game from the start.

Enjoy your religious dogma and limited view of the world. Limited by that awesome designer you put so much stock into.


Oh, and explain what those proteins are made from....were they popped into existence by that awesome designer of yours?

a reply to: Krakatoa

A loaded question? A trap?

It's a simple question and if you can't answer it that should trouble you.

There hasn't been anything new since LUCA.

I can have a thousand leg X-Rays and gain all sorts of insights from that data set but the leg X-Ray will never evolve into a chest X-Ray.

The point is, evolution hasn't created anything new through mutations that wasn't allowed by the code. You can play Poker until the moon turns to cheese and you will only get 1 of 2,598,960 million combinations.

There's nothing new under the Sun!!

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Krakatoa

A loaded question? A trap?

It's a simple question and if you can't answer it that should trouble you.

There hasn't been anything new since LUCA.

I can have a thousand leg X-Rays and gain all sorts of insights from that data set but the leg X-Ray will never evolve into a chest X-Ray.

The point is, evolution hasn't created anything new through mutations that wasn't allowed by the code. You can play Poker until the moon turns to cheese and you will only get 2,598,960 million combinations.

There's nothing new under the Sun!!

And my response is........ so what.

Who says there was new information being created or required as part of evolution?

It wasn't me....and you failed to provide that aspect of the conversation from the start. You began with a preconceived premise from word one. That is the trap.....genius.

The entire argument is based on the definition of "new" information, but that presupposes that "new" is necessary. It's not so much "new" information that yields different properties, but different combinations of "old" information. DNA has done pretty well in diversification with just four substances: A, G, C, and T. Whales or humans, grass or trees. It's still the same four. So what's with this fixation on "new"?

In terms of mutations, it's just a matter of chance. For example, when England burned coal, the white-barked trees in the forests turned black with coal dust. The white moths that had been living on the trees for millennia suddenly stood out against the black bark and earned the notice of birds, who ate them. But the mutation that made a white moth black meant the black moths survived the birdie apocalypse. Soon, all the moths were black. Now that the clouds of coal dust are gone, the bark has turned white again. Guess which color moth is vulnerable. In neither case was this "new' information; it was just a difference that meant survival for the correctly-colored moth. But it is all still expressed by A, G, C, and T. Nothing new here at all.

The way I see it, several very complex subjects including molecular physics, chemistry and bioinformatics have been very roughly condensed into a lecture on software engineering that really doesn't do justice to the concepts at hand. And again, the samples and measurements of supernatural forces in action are very amusingly absent from a dissertation that seems geared toward such implications. Are we supposed to look at the hole in the satellite picture and extrapolate from context? That's barely science at all.

Methinks the smoking gun here is actually a toking nun.

Gene expression is done by alterations of a lot of snps in the junk DNA. The variations alter the enzymes needed to process the proteins. This is being investigated now, the stupid reasoning they had in the past has been torn wide open, they did not know what they were doing. It is very complex. Just changing an A to a T can sometimes cut enzyme production in half when on the lead side of the snp.If it is on the rear side of the snp, it can work different under stress or if the front is incapacitated by something, a safeguard of a sort. Then you have X and Y chromosomes, often a male can have a predominance by just one X copy.

I study this a lot, sometimes I spend many hours in a day researching DNA and how it works to create enzymes. Our DNA epigenetics is based on our ancestors environment and diet. Maybe you cannot change the proteins unless a mutation knocks out DNA, but you can change gene expression. Babies die from having wrong epigenetic snps and gensets quite often. But usually these variations just govern what you can eat and metabolize. It will still be years before there can be a good understanding of this stuff.

I have the genetic code for some people I know that have mutations where there are deletions and insertions. In these particular cases, the problem will show up in their forties, and with the one person, it did. When deletions or improper insertions are in the epigenetics, it can cause thinking problems or early heart disease problems. It increases the possibility of a stroke sometimes. If you are aware of a risk, simple dietary changes can help to keep the problem from coming out at all, but that dietary change is hard to determine when they are treating our food with so much chemicals and so many different spices in prepared foods that you could be intolerant to.

Epigenetic differences control enzymes that control protein coding regions. These make us different looking. Two identical twins can eat differently and look different, because of the interaction of diet with the epigenetics which alters gene expression and enzymes.

I can go on for hours with this stuff, I must have twenty thousand articles under my belt already dealing with epigenetics, I also took two online classes on the subject. The online university classes came later than my start on this research, I needed to learn how to discuss what I learned with others so took the classes. I am glad I did it that way, I can now discuss options with people who are professional since I was not taught how to think a certain way. I can see that a rare mutation can actually be beneficial, they focus on the bad a lot.