So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Dawkins

[Visaki]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

Okay, I understand what you are saying. The thing is that so far all the answers given, although being different, have been correct. The question asked is so simple that there are multiple correct answers for it. Nylon-eating bacteria is my favorite answer for creationists in general because it anwsers a lot of there questions.

This might be dumb question but is it possible for the mutation of nylon eating capability of bacteria to be non-information adding? I suppose I'm thinking of deletion mutations but question then is can a deletion mutation increase the information (totally random guess; yes)? I know that probably some will think "duh" but I'm a computer sciences major, not a biologist.

 

[Rumraket]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

This might be dumb question but is it possible for the mutation of nylon eating capability of bacteria to be non-information adding? I suppose I'm thinking of deletion mutations but question then is can a deletion mutation increase the information (totally random guess; yes)? I know that probably some will think "duh" but I'm a computer sciences major, not a biologist.

For such questions I would recommend this page : http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/01/test-your-knowledge-of-information.html

Test Your Knowledge of Information Theory
Creationists think information theory poses a serious challenge to modern evolutionary biology -- but that only goes to show that creationists are as ignorant of information theory as they are of biology.

Whenever a creationist brings up this argument, insist that they answer the following five questions. All five questions are based on the Kolmogorov interpretation of information theory. I like this version of information theory because (a) it does not depend on any hypothesized probability distribution (a frequent refuge of scoundrels) (b) the answers about how information can change when a string is changed are unambiguous and agreed upon by all mathematicians, allowing less wiggle room to weasel out of the inevitable conclusions, and (c) it applies to discrete strings of symbols and hence corresponds well with DNA.

All five questions are completely elementary, and I ask these questions in an introduction to the theory of Kolmogorov information for undergraduates at Waterloo. My undergraduates can nearly always answer these questions correctly, but creationists usually cannot.

Q1: Can information be created by gene duplication or polyploidy? More specifically, if x is a string of symbols, is it possible for xx to contain more information than x?

Q2: Can information be created by point mutations? More specifically, if xay is a string of symbols, is it possible that xby contains significantly more information? Here a, b are distinct symbols, and x, y are strings.

Q3: Can information be created by deletion? More specifically, if xyz is a string of symbols, is it possible that xz contains signficantly more information?

Q4: Can information be created by random rearrangement? More specifically, if x is a string of symbols, is it possible that some permutation of x contains significantly more information?

Q5. Can information be created by recombination? More specifically, let x and y be strings of the same length, and let s(x, y) be any single string obtained by "shuffling" x and y together. Here I do not mean what is sometimes called "perfect shuffle", but rather a possibly imperfect shuffle where x and y both appear left-to-right in s(x, y) , but not necessarily contiguously. For example, a perfect shuffle of 0000 and 1111 gives 01010101, and one possible non-perfect shuffle of 0000 and 1111 is 01101100. Can an imperfect shuffle of two strings have more information than the sum of the information in each string?

The answer to each question is "yes". In fact, for questions Q2-Q5, I can even prove that the given transformation can arbitrarily increase the amount of information in the string, in the sense that there exist strings for which the given transformation increases the complexity by an arbitrarily large multiplicative factor. I won't give the proofs here, because that's part of the challenge: ask your creationist to provide a proof for each of Q1-Q5.

Now I asserted that creationists usually cannot answer these questions correctly, and here is some proof.

Q1. In his book No Free Lunch, William Dembski claimed (p. 129) that "there is no more information in two copies of Shakespeare's Hamlet than in a single copy. This is of course patently obvious, and any formal account of information had better agree." Too bad for him that Kolmogorov complexity is a formal account of information theory, and it does not agree.

Q2. Lee Spetner and the odious Ken Ham are fond of claiming that mutations cannot increase information. And this creationist web page flatly claims that "No mutation has yet been found that increased the genetic information." All of them are wrong in the Kolmogorov model of information.

Q4. R. L. Wysong, in his book The Creation-Evolution Controversy, claimed (p. 109) that "random rearrangements in DNA would result in loss of DNA information". Wrong in the Kolmogorov model.

So, the next time you hear these bogus claims, point them to my challenge, and let the weaselling begin!

 

[Dean]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

We all know the video, I'm sure. The one where creationists ask Richard Dawkins "Can you give an example of a mutation that adds information?" and he doesn't reply for a few seconds, cause he's wondering if he should kick the creationists out. And creationist like to pretend he was stumped by the question.
So how do you answer the question, anyway? Is the answer something along the lines of "An insect species isn't immune to a pesticide, and after a mutation it is", or is it more like "An insertion (a letter is added into the DNA) or a duplication of a gene"?

Answer = Down Syndrome.

 

[GenesForLife]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

Also look at this, Copy Number Variations are associated with phenotypic variation.

Copy number variation (CNV) has recently gained considerable interest as a source of genetic variation likely to play a role in phenotypic diversity and evolution. Much effort has been put into the identification and mapping of regions that vary in copy number among seemingly normal individuals in humans and a number of model organisms, using bioinformatics or hybridization-based methods. These have allowed uncovering associations between copy number changes and complex diseases in whole-genome association studies, as well as identify new genomic disorders. At the genome-wide scale, however, the functional impact of CNV remains poorly studied. Here we review the current catalogs of CNVs, their association with diseases and how they link genotype and phenotype. We describe initial evidence which revealed that genes in CNV regions are expressed at lower and more variable levels than genes mapping elsewhere, and also that CNV not only affects the expression of genes varying in copy number, but also have a global influence on the transcriptome. Further studies are warranted for complete cataloguing and fine mapping of CNVs, as well as to elucidate the different mechanisms by which they influence gene expression.

The copy number of a gene is the number of copies a gene has within the genome, and these copies are a result of gene duplication, not only is this per se information increase wrt Kolmogorov complexity, it also shows that CNVs add extra information insofar transcript processing and eventually, phenotypes are concerned, which constitutes non-Kolmogorov increases in information. So creationists are doubly buggered.


Full paper here http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/R1/R1.full

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

I would have paused that long to consider a streaming line of insults at their intelligence.

It would be like someone walking into my house, interviewing me and claiming to be making a movie about the Navy and overseas operations, and then asking me if there were any instances where someone actually DIED from the concussion of the explosion.
(And now imagine that they are people who don't believe that air can compress)

The next words out of my mouth would have been: "Really? Are you fucking serious?"
>.>

 

[DukeTwicep]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

The question was. "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"

Sounds like any mutation to me. So shouldn't the question instead be, "Give an example of any mutation." To me that sounds like asking, "Give an example of a breed of dogs". If they watched the news they might have noticed that we are tampering with the genome quite a lot, both directly and indirectly. And how is it possible Not to know about the botanists who create flowers with different colours and other properties.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

It is not any mutation. Some mutation, like deletion (and that is roughly about it) can cause a reduction in genetic material.

 

[Aught3]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

According to Rumraket's post above, in a formal information theory a deletion can lead to increased information.

In a biological context if you had two copies of the same gene and one underwent a deletion that altered its functionality then there would be an increase in biological complexity.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

According to Rumraket's post above, in a formal information theory a deletion can lead to increased information.

In a biological context if you had two copies of the same gene and one underwent a deletion that altered its functionality then there would be an increase in biological complexity.

Well yeah, but there is nothing that stops it from there being a decrease, one that may even actualy be selected for.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

Either way, you guys have to admit that the answer isn't as clear-cut as people always say when they point out how stupid creationists are for asking it, if Dawkins writes so many pages to answer it.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. That's like saying that because relativity and quantum mechanics are so complicated and take many pages to explain, it isn't clear that they both surpass Newtonian physics. Or like saying that because medical degrees take longer to get than "certifications" to do homeopathy, rejecting homeopathy as foolish nonsense isn't as clear-cut as we make it out to be.

 

[C0NSUM3R0F3V0FL35H]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

There is no answer, no mutation has ever added new information, nor can this happen.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

There is no answer, no mutation has ever added new information, nor can this happen.

Apparently, someone did not read this thread. Many answers have been given in this thread to answer the question. Ignorance is not a valid form of argumentation.

 

[DukeTwicep]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

It is not any mutation. Some mutation, like deletion (and that is roughly about it) can cause a reduction in genetic material.

Has there ever been recorded a mutation that Only decreases information? I can understand if some mutation adds some information and decreases some, but Only decreases? That sounds very improbable, no?

 

[IBSpify]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

It is not any mutation. Some mutation, like deletion (and that is roughly about it) can cause a reduction in genetic material.

Has there ever been recorded a mutation that Only decreases information? I can understand if some mutation adds some information and decreases some, but Only decreases? That sounds very improbable, no?

It depends on what they mean by information, if they are talking in lines of code, then a deletion mutation would be seen as a pure lose of information. This is why I always ask the creationists to tell me what they mean when they say information, at which point they get all uppity because they they don't know what they mean they are just spewing from the mouth at arguments they heard other creationists give.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

There is no answer, no mutation has ever added new information, nor can this happen.

I guess you told us! :roll:

 

[Squawk]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

It is not any mutation. Some mutation, like deletion (and that is roughly about it) can cause a reduction in genetic material.

Has there ever been recorded a mutation that Only decreases information? I can understand if some mutation adds some information and decreases some, but Only decreases? That sounds very improbable, no?

You can't really ever refer to a mutation only increasing or decreasing information. Information comes in many forms, as has been pointed out in this thread. We might refer to transmitted information, which can never increase (think signal integrity), vs stored information, which may decrease or increase.

Consider the English language.

Does the word "they" lose information to become the word "the"? All I've done is remove a part of it (in effect a mutation deleting part of the genome of the word they, if you pardon the word usage).

Has information increased, decreased, or changed? Clearly the original meaning of the word has been lost, so in that sense information decreased. The total information stored has decreased, now requiring only 3 place holders to represent rather than 4. However, the information stored within the new word has actually changed to become something else. It takes less space to represent it, but the context in which it is read is new.

The concept of information is not something that can be viewed in a vacuum. It needs to be given context, a fact that the creationists, as aptly demonstrated above, ignores completely.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

Has there ever been recorded a mutation that Only decreases information? I can understand if some mutation adds some information and decreases some, but Only decreases? That sounds very improbable, no?

Losing things sometimes is advantageous even tough the tendecy is in the oposite direction. Whales losing their legs may not be seen necessarily as a detriment to the whales, and if future humans would lose their apedixes and avoid those nasty apendicitous it would be seen as a wining situation comming from a loss of an obsolete structure.

Of course sometimes wining genetic material can cause the loss of a structure, while losing genetic material may result in gaining a structure. Genes do not work in a vacum , they exist with other genes that are mostly advantageous to other tasks, however they can interfeer.
bah!!.. ask a geneticist for an example.

 

[DukeTwicep]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

You can't really ever refer to a mutation only increasing or decreasing information. Information comes in many forms, as has been pointed out in this thread. We might refer to transmitted information, which can never increase (think signal integrity), vs stored information, which may decrease or increase.

Consider the English language.

Does the word "they" lose information to become the word "the"? All I've done is remove a part of it (in effect a mutation deleting part of the genome of the word they, if you pardon the word usage).

Has information increased, decreased, or changed? Clearly the original meaning of the word has been lost, so in that sense information decreased. The total information stored has decreased, now requiring only 3 place holders to represent rather than 4. However, the information stored within the new word has actually changed to become something else. It takes less space to represent it, but the context in which it is read is new.

The concept of information is not something that can be viewed in a vacuum. It needs to be given context, a fact that the creationists, as aptly demonstrated above, ignores completely.

Good point, I see it now. Perhaps "changed" is the better word to use then.

 

[Laurens]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

There is no answer, no mutation has ever added new information, nor can this happen.

There are several examples in this topic. Have a read, it's pretty interesting.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: So what IS the answer to the question that "stumped" Daw

The question was. "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"

Sounds like any mutation to me. So shouldn't the question instead be, "Give an example of any mutation." To me that sounds like asking, "Give an example of a breed of dogs". If they watched the news they might have noticed that we are tampering with the genome quite a lot, both directly and indirectly. And how is it possible Not to know about the botanists who create flowers with different colours and other properties.

Well, the real problem here is indeed the question, which is dumb, but not for the reason you think.

The whole question turns on what, precisely, is meant by 'information', and the simple fact that the question gets asked s an indication that the questioner already has a definition they like and that they think demonstrates that there can be no such thing as a mutation that results in an increase in information. It should be noted that getting them to provide their definition is like getting logic from a cretinist, but on the odd occasion that they do, they always employ the definition from Claude Shannon, who was a communications engineer and dealt with signal integrity during transmission/reception. Under this formulation, noise, interference, etc, all reduce the certainty, and thus the information content. Further, because of what it deals with, under Shannon theorem there is a maximal information content. You can't have more information than the original, untainted signal.

They overlook the fact that there is another, equally robust definition from the work of Andrey Kolmogorov, who dealt with data storage and compression algorithms. Under Kolmogorov's definition, the noise, interference itself constitutes information, because it increases complexity, and thus cannot be compressed to as great a degree for storage.

More on all of that HERE.

Thing is, this question is rooted not just in an unspoken assumption about what information is, but also on what information requires. In other words, the implication is that information requires a designer. This is a trivial argument to refute, though. Not only that, we can refute it in the words of the man who defined information in the way that they are using it.

The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, information
must not be confused with meaning. In fact, two messages, one of which is heavily loaded with meaning and the other of which is pure nonsense, can be exactly equivalent, from the present viewpoint, as regards information.

In short, it's an idiotic question, which Dawkins recognised immediately as constituting the fuckwittery above, not least because it comes up so much.

If you want more information about information, and a simpler elucidation of the above distinctions, use the forum search facility to search for the keyword 'dogshit', and you'll find as much info as you can throw a turd at.