[_ Old Earth _] Evolution 101

[jwu]

If the base pair substitution get's repaired by accident, you end up with a neutral change in in the orignal info. Before the accidental correction, their
was a loss of info. So, again, there is again no gain in info...only back to
where we started. Far from effectively ending the debate.

You're moving the goalposts. It may have been a neutral change from the original information, but from the temporarily reduced information it was an increase. The original information was lost. It has been regained from scratch. I only use this example because it works independently from an actual definition of information.

1.

There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.
2.

SO when an increase of binding specifity is observed, it "was designed to behave like that under stress"? Did God plan to enable it to be able to digest nylon once man made that substance? That makes the claim that no information can be gained unfalsifyable, and hence it loses any meaning.
3, 4, 5 and 6 do not make the observed emergence of a new ability go away either. They look for a-posteriori statistical anomalies in the genome, and then claim that it was designed to behave like that somehow. Note that they did not in any way dispute that an increase of functionality happened, they just say "Goddidit". The emergence of a new ability stands unrefuted, and by AiGs reasoning any new ability can be handwaved away as God guiding the mutation or whatever else mechanism provided it.

Exactly...though impossible in the case of an amoeba mutating to a
human.The reason you think Information theory is inapplicable to
biology, is you assume evolution is a fact. It's circular rerasoning.

No, it's because evolution requires no increase of Shannon information.
I did not say "evolution happens, therefore shannon information theory is inapplicable." That'd be circular reasoning.

What i explained is that evolution is compatible with Shannon's information theory, as any evolutionary change, be it good or bad for the organism, be is a loss or increase of function of the genome, is consiered a loss of information according to Shannon, because in Shannon's information theory any change to the original message is considered a loss. It doesn't consider the consequences of that change in any way, if the organism lost or gained abilities from that.
Hence evolution (which is about good and bad changes to the genome) does not require any increase of Shannon information in first instance, thus making it useless as an argument here.

What exctly is circular in this?

So, let's see, to accomodate your view, we have to change Genesis 1:1-11

(because it doesn't agree with evolution)

Because it doesn't agree with the evidence, not with evolution. The evidence suggests that life developed slowly, if that happened by evolution or not doesn't change the evidence. Evolution just offers an explaination for the evidence.
Furthermore, it's not changed in first instance. Just interpreted differently.
Exactly like the sequence about the devil taking Jesus on an exceedingly high mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the world. Since there is no such mountain from which one can see all kingdoms of the earth, that is not read literally anymore. Same with Genesis.

Modern Information Theory

(Conservation of Information, Informational Entropy, Etc...)

Have you understood that there are various branches of information theory? Some in which there is a conservation of information (Shannon), and some in which there is no such thing (K/C)? Your only explaination of informational entropy related to Shannon's by the way. You're mixing various flavours of information theory, nominally those which have an established law of conservation (Shannon) with others which actually attempt to measure the function of the genome, not just its transmission integrity as Shannon does. That is not valid.

violate the rule

of Cause and Effect,

How so?

twist the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Earth is an open system.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Here's the situation you presented:

jwu wrote:

As a seperate line of reasoning...what happens to the information content of a string of DNA if a base pair is deleted and whatever was coded in it doesn't fulfil a purpose anymore? Does the information content decrease because of that, or can this not be determined based on the effect of the codex enzyme or protein on the organism?

In this situation, there has been a loss of information, because of message

corruption.

jwu wrote:
And exactly that is why Shannon's information theory is absolutely inapplicable to biology. In it by definition any change of the original message is considered a loss of information, as it's a deviation from the "original intent".

Just because it doesn't make sense in evolutionary terms, doesn't mean it

doesn't make sense. In ID terms, it makes total sense...the message

transmitted is not the intended message.

jwu wrote:

Does the claim that information can only decrease then not imply that no mutation can happen which inserts that particular base pair again then? After all, otherwise that would be an increase of information, as the previously extant information was lost and it is being regained from nothing.

What's occured here is a net neutral effect on the message...a loss

of meaning, and then by accident, regaining that info. The message is back

to it's original state(albiet accidently). The lost function is regained.

jwu wrote:

SO when an increase of binding specifity is observed, it "was designed to behave like that under stress"? Did God plan to enable it to be able to digest nylon once man made that substance? That makes the claim that no information can be gained unfalsifyable, and hence it loses any meaning.
3, 4, 5 and 6 do not make the observed emergence of a new ability go away either. They look for a-posteriori statistical anomalies in the genome, and then claim that it was designed to behave like that somehow. Note that they did not in any way dispute that an increase of functionality happened, they just say "Goddidit". The emergence of a new ability stands unrefuted, and by AiGs reasoning any new ability can be handwaved away as God guiding the mutation or whatever else mechanism provided it.

The reason scientists conducting the research believe it was designed to

behave accordingly is highlighted:

Quote:

1.

There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.

2.

All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes (coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a ‘late addition’ to the plasmids to not have changed. But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.

3.

All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids. None appear on the main bacterial chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does not look like some random origin of these genesâ€â€the chance of this happening is low. If the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp,7 and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory-controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible.
4.

The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes investigated in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks any stop codons.8 This is most remarkable in a total of 1,535 bases. The probability of this happening by chance in all four antisense sequences is about 1 in 1012. Furthermore, the EIII gene in Pseudomonas is clearly not phylogenetically related to the EII genes of Flavobacterium, so the lack of stop codons in the antisense strands of all genes cannot be due to any commonality in the genes themselves (or in their ancestry). Also, the wild-type pOAD2 plasmid is not necessary for the normal growth of Flavobacterium, so functionality in the wild-type parent DNA sequences would appear not to be a factor in keeping the reading frames open in the genes themselves, let alone the antisense strands.

Some statements by Yomo et al., express their consternation:

‘These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes.

‘The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer degradation.

‘Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these genes.’

It looks like recombination of codons (base pair triplets), not single base pairs, has occurred between the start and stop codons for each sequence. This would be about the simplest way that the antisense strand could be protected from stop codon generation. The mechanism for such a recombination is unknown, but it is highly likely that the transposase genes are involved.

Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident).
5.

The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.
6.

The researchers have not been able to ascertain any putative ancestral gene to the nylon-degrading genes. They represent a new gene family. This seems to rule out gene duplications as a source of the raw material for the new genes.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp

jwu wrote:

No, it's because evolution requires no increase of Shannon information.
I did not say "evolution happens, therefore shannon information theory is inapplicable." That'd be circular reasoning.

Again, your making the assumption evolution occurs in your statement.

What if Information Theory applies to biology? Then the 2 theories are at

odds.

You're mixing various flavours of information theory, nominally those which have an established law of conservation (Shannon) with others which actually attempt to measure the function of the genome, not just its transmission integrity as Shannon does. That is not valid.

The different flavors of information theory to which your referring are

different aspects of the theory that have been developed since the inception

of classical information theory (Shannon's). Their complementary, not at

odds with one another.

Charlie wrote:

...violate the rule

of Cause and Effect...

jwu wrote:

How so?

To start with, a cause must be greater than the effect. ToE contradicts this

rule...actually reversing the rule.

jwu wrote:

Earth is an open system.

All systems are open. All real-world change or dynamics follow, or

are motivated, by this law (2nd).

Even so, increased complexity requires outside energy and information or a

code to direct this energy into useful work.

The energy in itself has no organizational properties.


Peace

 

[jwu]

In this situation, there has been a loss of information, because of message

corruption.

And a switched base pair is not a message corruption?

If "the cat is brown" is changed to "the xat is brown", wasn't information lost just like in "the at is brown"?

Just because it doesn't make sense in evolutionary terms, doesn't mean itdoesn't make sense. In ID terms, it makes total sense...the message
transmitted is not the intended message.

So by definition no change at all is desireable, as any change constitutes a loss of information by definition then. How does this fit to your statement that the nylon bacteria were designed to react the way they did? That implies that change is desireable, which is at odds with the statement you're making there.

Furthermore, you've still not explained how Shannon's information theory deals with an increase of what i will call Spetner information - if something happens which confers increased binding specifity to the organism, then this constitutes an increase of Spetner information but a decrease of Shannon information, as the genome was changed. These two understandings of information are mutually exclusive.

What's occured here is a net neutral effect on the message...a loss
of meaning, and then by accident, regaining that info. The message is back
to it's original state(albiet accidently). The lost function is regained.

And what relevant difference is there between regaining lost information and new information? Does the genome somehow remember what information was lost?

‘These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes.

Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident).

Not at all - it just goes hand in hand with not everything about genes being known. Concluding that a miracle just happened in that petri dish is a huge non-sequitur.

Again, your making the assumption evolution occurs in your statement.

Not at all. I have explained how evolution and Shannon information theory are compatible, which you completely ignored. What is wrong with my explaination?

What if Information Theory applies to biology? Then the 2 theories are at odds.

No, as Shannon information theory does not make any statements about the consequences of mutations - it basically just says that mutations do happen (imperfect replication of the genome), but says nothing about the effect of these mutations.

The different flavors of information theory to which your referring are
different aspects of the theory that have been developed since the inception
of classical information theory (Shannon's). Their complementary, not at
odds with one another.

Many of them are not compatible at all. As i have explained, Shannon and Spetner are incompatible, as is K/C information theory (where an increase of information is explicitly allowed).

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu wrote:


And a switched base pair is not a message corruption?

If "the cat is brown" is changed to "the xat is brown", wasn't information lost just like in "the at is brown"?

Not if the exact same characters are replaced, as to restore the integrity of the

message. That was the latest example you presented.


To be continued.

 

[jwu]

So if "the cat is brown" is changed to "asd adv ns drfvb" no information was lost?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

This is the situation you presented:

jwu wrote:

Does the claim that information can only decrease then not imply that no mutation can happen which inserts that particular base pair again then? After all, otherwise that would be an increase of information, as the previously extant information was lost and it is being regained from nothing.

The new example you've presented results in a loss of info (lol...assuming

the intended message was "the cat is brown". Your previous example

assumed the exact info lost was replaced by accident.

So if "the cat is brown" is changed to "asd adv ns drfvb" no information was lost?

 

[jwu]

And your very own sources say that this does happen:

‘Reversion - back mutation
Can be 1) true reversion or 2) pseudoreversion or suppressor mutation
Point mutations have highest reversion frequency; deletion mutations have the lowest (none).'

And what if "the cat is brown" is changed to "the hat is brown"? Is that not new information then?

Something else that can happen is "the cat ws brown". That's not a correct sentence, but it is close to one - this is analogous to an enzyme or proteine with low activity in Spetner's terms.
From here however mutations other than a reversal or the insertion of an "a" between the "w" and the "s" would be selected against, as these would make the sentence less correct, so it can make the jump to "the cat was brown".

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

And your very own sources say that this does happen:
Quote:
‘Reversion - back mutation
Can be 1) true reversion or 2) pseudoreversion or suppressor mutation
Point mutations have highest reversion frequency; deletion mutations have the lowest (none).'


And what if "the cat is brown" is changed to "the hat is brown"? Is that not new information then?

Something else that can happen is "the cat ws brown". That's not a correct sentence, but it is close to one - this is analogous to an enzyme or proteine with low activity in Spetner's terms.
From here however mutations other than a reversal or the insertion of an "a" between the "w" and the "s" would be selected against, as these would make the sentence less correct, so it can make the jump to "the cat was brown".

In the case of true reversion, "the cat is brown" would mutate to "the cat ws

brown" (loss of info), then back to "the cat is brown" (gain of info-thus a net

wash).

In pseudoreversion, one codon is substituted with another codon

that results in the same amino acid sequence. Hence the same info is

communicated (net wash).


Peace

 

[jwu]

...and information was gained during the step from "the cat ws" brown to "the cat is brown".

So what would prevent the same from happening in cases in which no information was previously lost, when the genome started with low specifity as in "the cat ws brown"? What would prevent a change to high specifity such as "is" or "was"? Or in the case that"the cat is brown" changes to "the hat is brown"?

If reversals (a specific type of mutation) can do it, then why can't other mutations, which are even more common than reversals, do it?

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

...and information was gained during the step from "the cat ws" brown to "the cat is brown".

Your back to where you began. There has been no gain or loss.

So what would prevent the same from happening in cases in which no information was previously lost, when the genome started with low specifity as in "the cat ws brown"?

If no information was lost, you wouldn't have "the cat ws brown", you would

have "the cat is brown" (or whatever the originally intended message was).

Or in the case that "the cat is brown" changes to "the hat is brown"?

Information has been lost..the original message is corrupted.


I'd like to take a step back and look at this in a more Macro sense. If we're

debating over even one mutation resulting in an information gain, then just

imagine how the problem compounds to create a new species.


Here's a pretty nifty analysis of the odds of just a single cell gene strand

occuring by random chance:

DNA Polymerase III. This is the main gene involved in DNA replication in one celled organisms. This gene is made up of seven sections each 300 to over 1000 amino acids long. Now what are the odds of through random mutation such a gene arising? Let’s see we would need a chain some 2000 amino acids long with the proper amino acid (one of 20) in each link. Now the chances of this occurring, even if we were to agree that there can be some amino acid substitution at each position, let’s say one of any 5 could fit in each one and still be effective (this is very optimistic and gives lower odds than in reality) the odds would still be 4 to the 2000th power. That yields a number larger than a 1 with some 1500 zeros behind it. An evolutionist would say given enough generations and enough individuals, such a thing could happen. The answer is an absolute no. In a species that replicated on a daily basis for the last 3.5 billion years since life is supposed to have begun on earth there would have been 1,277,500,000,000 generations. That takes care of 12 zeros, we still need to get rid of 1488. Let’s say there was a large population of these creatures, let’s say there were a trillion trillion of these species (is that generous enough?) . Now a trillion is 12 zeros times another trillion is 24 zeros. So now we have only 1464 zeros to go!

http://designeduniverse.com/articles/By ... Darwin.htm

I certainly wouldn't bet on it.

Peace

 

[jwu]

Your back to where you began. There has been no gain or loss.

No gain or loss compared to before, but in between previously lost information was regained. How is this possible if information can only be lost? It should be gone permanently.

If no information was lost, you wouldn't have "the cat ws brown", you would

have "the cat is brown" (or whatever the originally intended message was).

And if the originally intended message was like that? E.g. you claimed that the nylon bacteria were designed as they were, ready to adapt, that'd be just such a situation then. They mutated and set that additional potential free.

Information has been lost..the original message is corrupted.

And one can get from amoeba to men with nothing but corruptions of messages.

I'd like to take a step back and look at this in a more Macro sense. If we're debating over even one mutation resulting in an information gain, then just imagine how the problem compounds to create a new species.

We're debating about a single mutation because no more are required to make the point, it keeps things simpler.

Here's a pretty nifty analysis of the odds of just a single cell gene strand occuring by random chance:

Straw man. That's the a priori chance of one particular strand occuring in a single attempt. Evolution doesn't claim that it happens that way - there are many many different possibilities, and these are acted upon by selection.
The article that you quoted makes as much sense as throwing a hundred dice and then wondering about how unlikely that particular outcome was - whatever it was.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

the odds would still be 4 to the 2000th power. That yields a number larger than a 1 with some 1500 zeros behind it.

Ah the old laughably ignorant irreducible complexity argument. The Theory of Natural Selection says that modern life developed as a result of the proliferation of biological traits as well as the random infusion of mutations. Nowhere does it say that the complete Genome of a species of animal flew together randomly one day.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu wrote:

No gain or loss compared to before, but in between previously lost information was regained. How is this possible if information can only be lost? It should be gone permanently.

If the base pair substitution get's repaired by accident, you end up with a

neutral change in in the original info. Before the accidental correction, their

was a loss of info. So, again, there is again no gain in info...only back to

where we started. The point is, there's no gain from the originally

intended message.

The best you can do with a mutation is break even.

It's not possible to improve on transmitting the exact intended message.

Any change in the originally intended message is a loss of info (though it

could be something relatively minor).

I don't believe I stated there could only be a

loss of info when mutations occur. The statement I made is there can be

no increase in info. The reason I made this statement is this is exactly what

ToE depends on as it's catalyst for increased complexity.

Peace

 

[Guest]

jwu wrote:

No gain or loss compared to before, but in between previously lost information was regained. How is this possible if information can only be lost? It should be gone permanently.

If the base pair substitution get's repaired by accident, you end up with a

neutral change in in the original info. Before the accidental correction, their

was a loss of info. So, again, there is again no gain in info...only back to

where we started. The point is, there's no gain from the originally

intended message.

The best you can do with a mutation is break even.

It's not possible to improve on transmitting the exact intended message.

Any change in the originally intended message is a loss of info (though it

could be something relatively minor).

I don't believe I stated there could only be a

loss of info when mutations occur. The statement I made is there can be

no increase in info. The reason I made this statement is this is exactly what

ToE depends on as it's catalyst for increased complexity.

Peace

that is not true, when dna splits, if a mutation occurs, the strand may repair 1 iregularity as though it were two, or extra cromosomes may occur during meosis or mitosis, for two simple examples

 

[jwu]

So, again, there is again no gain in info...only back to

where we started. The point is, there's no gain from the originally

intended message.

From the origunally intended message - that's Shannon's information theory. It just means that no message can be "more original" than the original, but it does not in any way evaluate what consequences a change of the "intended" message has for the survival of the organism.

The best you can do with a mutation is break even.

In Shannon IT, yes. That'd be a perfect copy of the DNA then - but if the "intended" message was "the cat ws brown" and that is changed to "the cat is brown", then that'd be a loss of Shannon information as well.

If an organism has DNA which says "the cat is brown" and its offspring is mutated to carry "the cat ws brown", then that's a loss of Shannon information. If that organism then has children and tries to make them have its own DNA but fails to do so, and subsequently these mutate back to "the cat is brown", then that's a loss of SI again, as at that time the intended message is "...ws...", not "...is..."

The statement I made is there can be

no increase in info. The reason I made this statement is this is exactly what

ToE depends on as it's catalyst for increased complexity.

And for the xth time, the ToE does not require an increase of Shannon information - in fact it requires a decrease, as no decrease means no mutations. Any non-synonymous mutation by definition is a decrease of Shannon information, regardless of its effects on the organism. If the organism is killed by that mutation or gains immunity to all diseases or telekinetic powers or whatever else, all of it would be considered a loss of Shannon information.


Note that Shannon information is unsuitable for measuring complexity, it's purely about message integrity. Complexity is the domain of K/C information theory - and there an increase is explicitly allowed.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

jwu wrote:

Note that Shannon information is unsuitable for measuring complexity, it's purely about message integrity. Complexity is the domain of K/C information theory - and there an increase is explicitly allowed.

K/C Theory only measures uncertainty before receipt, not information.

It's great for measuring randomness before receipt, but not the information

any particular string has.

K/C Theory is good for applications such as cryptology, because it measures

the uncertainty before receipt, but it can't actually measure info.

Peace

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

And for the xth time, the ToE does not require an increase of Shannon information - in fact it requires a decrease, as no decrease means no mutations. Any non-synonymous mutation by definition is a decrease of Shannon information, regardless of its effects on the organism. If the organism is killed by that mutation or gains immunity to all diseases or telekinetic powers or whatever else, all of it would be considered a loss of Shannon information.

Have you ever wondered why, if ToE is so straight forward, it violates

Shannon's Info Theory, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, The rule of

Cause and Effect, etc...

Because it doesn't happen.

Peace

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Charlie wrote:

The statement I made is there can be

no increase in info. The reason I made this statement is this is exactly what

ToE depends on as it's catalyst for increased complexity.

jwu wrote:

that is not true, when dna splits, if a mutation occurs, the strand may repair 1 irregularity as though it were two, or extra chromosomes may occur during meosis or mitosis, for two simple examples

I don't see where any increase in info occurs. The mutation is either neutral

or a loss. In the case of a Meiosis I error, in animals, having one extra

chromosome is not usually compatible with normal development and usually

results in an early termination of pregnancy.

In humans, there are a few trisomies for autosomes (non-sex

chromosomes) that may develop to birth although they each have a

distinctive set of developmental differences:

1. Trisomy 21 or Down's Syndrome

2. Trisomy 13 or Patau's Syndrome

3. Trisomy 18 or Edward's Syndrome

For most animals, triploidy and higher level ploidy states are not compatible

with normal development.

What's occurred in this situation is a transmission error and the resulting

entropy, which in turn results in information loss.

Peace

 

[Guest]

Charlie wrote:

The statement I made is there can be

no increase in info. The reason I made this statement is this is exactly what

ToE depends on as it's catalyst for increased complexity.

[quote:cb115]

jwu wrote:

that is not true, when dna splits, if a mutation occurs, the strand may repair 1 irregularity as though it were two, or extra chromosomes may occur during meosis or mitosis, for two simple examples

I don't see where any increase in info occurs. The mutation is either neutral

or a loss. In the case of a Meiosis I error, in animals, having one extra

chromosome is not usually compatible with normal development and usually

results in an early termination of pregnancy.

In humans, there are a few trisomies for autosomes (non-sex

chromosomes) that may develop to birth although they each have a

distinctive set of developmental differences:

1. Trisomy 21 or Down's Syndrome

2. Trisomy 13 or Patau's Syndrome

3. Trisomy 18 or Edward's Syndrome

For most animals, triploidy and higher level ploidy states are not compatible

with normal development.

What's occurred in this situation is a transmission error and the resulting

entropy, which in turn results in information loss.

Peace[/quote:cb115]
in plants, having an abnormal number of chromosomes is actually benifitial becouse it makes them bigger.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

If an organism has DNA which says "the cat is brown" and its offspring is mutated to carry "the cat ws brown", then that's a loss of Shannon information. If that organism then has children and tries to make them have its own DNA but fails to do so, and subsequently these mutate back to "the cat is brown", then that's a loss of SI again, as at that time the intended message is "...ws...", not "...is..."

Loss, Original, Loss, Original....

Peace