[__ Science __ ] How evolution adds (or subtracts) information

[Barbarian]

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. But it can add information, or remove information. In fact, speciation often happens when an isolated population has less genetic information (Founder Effect) and then becomes reproductively isolated from the rest of the species, effectively forming a new species.

After that, the new species generally goes through a stage of increasing information as new mutations appear. Every new mutation adds information to the population genome. Claude Shannon pioneered the mathematical understanding of information, and his theory (which also allows NASA to communicate with spacecraft over millions of kilometers of space) allows us to look at the way that evolution changes genetic information in a population. The equation describing this process is:

Where H is the information in the population for a given gene, and p is the frequency of each allele in that population. An allele is a different version of the same gene. So if there are two alleles, each with a frequency of 0.5, then the information for that gene in the population is about 0.30. If there's a new mutation for that gene, and it eventually increases so that each allele has a frequency of about 0.333, then the information for that gene would be about 0.48.

Information is basically a measure of uncertainty in a message. So in this case, it would be the uncertainty of which allele exists in a given member of the population. So, because the uncertainty is less if you have only two alleles, there is less information, and when there are three alleles, there is more information. And yes, if the alleles don't all have the same frequency, information will be different.

For example, if the frequencies for two alleles are 0.9 and 0.1, then the information would be about 0.14. Because there is less uncertainty about which allele a particular organism in the population might have. And if there is fixation and only one allele, then the information is 0.0, because there is no uncertainty at all.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. But it can add information, or remove information. In fact, speciation often happens when an isolated population has less genetic information (Founder Effect) and then becomes reproductively isolated from the rest of the species, effectively forming a new species.

After that, the new species generally goes through a stage of increasing information as new mutations appear. Every new mutation adds information to the population genome. Claude Shannon pioneered the mathematical understanding of information, and his theory (which also allows NASA to communicate with spacecraft over millions of kilometers of space) allows us to look at the way that evolution changes genetic information in a population. The equation describing this process is:

Where H is the information in the population for a given gene, and p is the frequency of each allele in that population. An allele is a different version of the same gene. So if there are two alleles, each with a frequency of 0.5, then the information for that gene in the population is about 0.30. If there's a new mutation for that gene, and it eventually increases so that each allele has a frequency of about 0.333, then the information for that gene would be about 0.48.

Information is basically a measure of uncertainty in a message. So in this case, it would be the uncertainty of which allele exists in a given member of the population. So, because the uncertainty is less if you have only two alleles, there is less information, and when there are three alleles, there is more information. And yes, if the alleles don't all have the same frequency, information will be different.

For example, if the frequencies for two alleles are 0.9 and 0.1, then the information would be about 0.14. Because there is less uncertainty about which allele a particular organism in the population might have. And if there is fixation and only one allele, then the information is 0.0, because there is no uncertainty at all.

Can you give an example of experiments where new information was naturally added to surviving offspring that wasn’t in the parent? Intelligently inserting information doesn’t count as that required a Designer. Finding creatures already different and assuming the theory happened doesn’t count either. If this is common, it shouldn’t be difficult. We are talking living parents and observed surviving offspring with new information.

The observed changes I’ve heard of were a loss of information.

 

[Edward]

My question is, where does the new information come from?

 

[Barbarian]

Can you give an example of experiments where new information was naturally added to surviving offspring that wasn’t in the parent?

Sure. All of us have dozens of mutations that weren't present in either parent.

We are all mutants: First direct whole-genome measure of human mutation predicts 60 new mutations in each of us​

Summary:
How many new mutations does a child have and did most of them come from mum or dad? The first answer is that each of us typically receives 60 new mutations from our parents. Remarkably, the number of mutations passed on from a parent to a child varies between parents by as much as tenfold. These striking answers come from the first-ever direct measure of new mutations using whole human genomes.

We are all mutants: First direct whole-genome measure of human mutation predicts 60 new mutations in each of us

How many new mutations does a child have and did most of them come from mum or dad? The first answer is that each of us typically receives 60 new mutations from our parents. Remarkably, the number of mutations passed on from a parent to a child varies between parents by as much as tenfold. These...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Barbarian]

My question is, where does the new information come from?

Mutations. Every new mutation in a population increases information.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Sure. All of us have dozens of mutations that weren't present in either parent.

We are all mutants: First direct whole-genome measure of human mutation predicts 60 new mutations in each of us​

Summary:
How many new mutations does a child have and did most of them come from mum or dad? The first answer is that each of us typically receives 60 new mutations from our parents. Remarkably, the number of mutations passed on from a parent to a child varies between parents by as much as tenfold. These striking answers come from the first-ever direct measure of new mutations using whole human genomes.

We are all mutants: First direct whole-genome measure of human mutation predicts 60 new mutations in each of us

How many new mutations does a child have and did most of them come from mum or dad? The first answer is that each of us typically receives 60 new mutations from our parents. Remarkably, the number of mutations passed on from a parent to a child varies between parents by as much as tenfold. These...

www.sciencedaily.com

What information do these give the offspring? The claim was INCREASED information, not merely changes. Can you demonstrate information that was present in the offspring but not in the parents? I could copy your post randomly adding lots of letters….doesn’t mean I’ve added information. Chances are I will have reduced information by muddling the original communication.

 

[Edward]

How many new mutations does a child have and did most of them come from mum or dad? The first answer is that each of us typically receives 60 new mutations from our parents. Remarkably, the number of mutations passed on from a parent to a child varies between parents by as much as tenfold. These striking answers come from the first-ever direct measure of new mutations using whole human genomes.

And the Maury show was born, lol.

I don't think it's a direct measure. It could be simply statistics, they're keeping track now just like the weather.

But it's also enviromental which is to say, it depends on which neighbrohood the Mother goes to. (sic)

 

[Edward]

Mutations. Every new mutation in a population increases information.

But what is the source of the new information? Scripture says that Jesus holds all things together, sustains them. So that sounds like maintenance to me. So Jesus is the source of the new information.

Not that He didn't create a perfect world because He did. But we messed it up by falling. And we're still messing it up and even worse. So He patches things up here and there after we destroy it. And supplies whichever organism new info to keep it going and adapt to our sin world...?

 

[Barbarian]

What information do these give the offspring?

Every new mutation in a population adds information. The equation is:

Where H is the information, and p is the frequency of each allele in the population. This is the same theory that allows you to communicate over the internet, and to allow NASA to communicate with spacecraft over millions of kilometers of space.

A simple example: Suppose there are two alleles for a certain gene in a population, each at 0.5 frequency. Using the Shannon equation above, the information for that gene is about 0.30.

Then a mutation occurs, producing a new allele, which eventually increases so that each allele has about 0.333 frequency. The information then is about 0.48.

The claim was INCREASED information, not merely changes.

As you see, such new mutations increase information. Always. Perhaps you don't know what "information" means in a measurable way. What do you think it means?

You seem to have confused "information" with "useful." There are, of course, many useful mutations even though most of them are neither useful nor harmful. Would you like to learn about some of them?

 

[Barbarian]

But what is the source of the new information?

Mutations. That's all that's needed. "Information" is just a measure of uncertainty in the message. For example, if there is fixation and there is only one allele in the population, then there will be no uncertainty as to the allele in any specific member of the population. And given the frequency of 1.0, then log (1.0) X 1.0 = 0 and the information for that allele would be zero. Because finding the allele for that individual would tell you nothing you don't already know.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Mutations. Every new mutation in a population increases information.

Example please because the most common ones decrease information. I know of none that increase information aiding survival.

 

[Barbarian]

Some very recent useful human mutations:

4 beneficial evolutionary mutations that humans are undergoing right now

The genetic mutation that drives evolution is random. But here's a list of some beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings

bigthink.com

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Every new mutation in a population adds information. The equation is:

Where H is the information, and p is the frequency of each allele in the population. This is the same theory that allows you to communicate over the internet, and to allow NASA to communicate with spacecraft over millions of kilometers of space.

A simple example: Suppose there are two alleles for a certain gene in a population, each at 0.5 frequency. Using the Shannon equation above, the information for that gene is about 0.30.

Then a mutation occurs, producing a new allele, which eventually increases so that each allele has about 0.333 frequency. The information then is about 0.48.

As you see, such new mutations increase information. Always. Perhaps you don't know what "information" means in a measurable way. What do you think it means?

You seem to have confused "information" with "useful." There are, of course, many useful mutations even though most of them are neither useful nor harmful. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Examples in biology please

 

[Barbarian]

Example please because the most common ones decrease information.

No. Every new mutation in a population adds information. You have to remember some important things:
1. "Information" applies to a population of organisms, not a single individual. Individuals don't change their genomes.
2. "Useful information" applies only in context of the environment. Light skin, which evolved in a few tens of thousands of years ago, was adaptive only when humans moved into colder climates where sunlight was sparse in the winter.
3. "Information" may or may not be useful, and often doesn't become useful until much later. Some people have a mutation that provides very good resistance to HIV. This was an entirely neutral mutation until HIV evolved and then it became a very useful mutation.

In 1996 this method enabled molecular biologist Stephen O’Brien and his colleagues to discover a rare genetic mutation that protects against the human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS.

Most people have a protein receptor present primarily on the surface of certain immune cells called the chemokine receptor 5, or CCR5. This receptor allows HIV to bind with and enter the cell. But O'Brien’s team discovered that some people have a mutation that produces a defective receptor.

To be resistant, an individual needs two copies of this so-called delta-32 mutation—one from each parent. A single copy can still allow the virus to infect cells, although it slows down the patient’s trajectory to developing AIDS.

Are some people resistant to COVID-19? Geneticists are on the hunt.

Thousands of people repeatedly exposed to the virus never got sick. Scientists hope their DNA may hold clues to new kinds of treatments.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[Edward]

Mutations. That's all that's needed. "Information" is just a measure of uncertainty in the message. For example, if there is fixation and there is only one allele in the population, then there will be no uncertainty as to the allele in any specific member of the population. And given the frequency of 1.0, then log (1.0) X 1.0 = 0 and the information for that allele would be zero. Because finding the allele for that individual would tell you nothing you don't already know.

Oh ok. Sort of like how red heads pop up in a family of black haired people then. But it's probably in the design to do so. The information for the mutation was already there but had not heard the command to, adapt or whatever.

Just like when God created the heavens and the earth, which was time/space and matter. Later days He created animals and stuff Himself, but one day He said, Let the Earth bring forth grass and stuff, so God did not directly create grass, but the ingrediants were all in the pot and so they were able to respond to His command...?

 

[Barbarian]

Oh ok. Sort of like how red heads pop up in a family of black haired people then.

Maybe, if it's a new mutation. generally, that's just a recessive coming out when two people with one gene for red hair, have children and one of them happens to get both recessives. But we're talking about new mutations adding information here.

But it's probably in the design to do so.

Intelligent Design guys call it "front-loading." The idea that God created the universe with rules that allowed new information to appear by mutation in living things. Which sounds reasonable. I think that's what happens. The information isn't there initially, but He made things so that new information is always appearing. This is how adaptation and evolution work.

He didn't directly do it, but He made the universe to bring forth life and for life to change over time as needed.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Some very recent useful human mutations:

4 beneficial evolutionary mutations that humans are undergoing right now

The genetic mutation that drives evolution is random. But here's a list of some beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings

bigthink.com

And the Maury show was born, lol.

I don't think it's a direct measure. It could be simply statistics, they're keeping track now just like the weather.

But it's also enviromental which is to say, it depends on which neighbrohood the Mother goes to. (sic)

Almost all genetic mutations yield no beneficial changes in information and some are lethal. No parent is happy when an OB/GYN tells them that their unborn has a known genetic mutation. That says a lot. Even evolutionists don’t say, “great, our unborn has a known genetic mutation.”

I will tackle the examples given later when I have a keyboard. They are easily shown to be only wishful thinking for evolutionists. They happen, but they do not support the theory.

 

[Edward]

Maybe, if it's a new mutation. generally, that's just a recessive coming out when two people with one gene for red hair, have children and one of them happens to get both recessives. But we're talking about new mutations adding information here.



Intelligent Design guys call it "front-loading." The idea that God created the universe with rules that allowed new information to appear by mutation in living things. Which sounds reasonable. I think that's what happens. The information isn't there initially, but He made things so that new information is always appearing. This is how adaptation and evolution work.

He didn't directly do it, but He made the universe to bring forth life and for life to change over time as needed.

Well the Lord caused the mutant gene information to go recessive until He calls on it. Maybe!

 

[Barbarian]

Almost all genetic mutations yield no beneficial changes in information and some are lethal.

In fact, we have dozens of them that were not present in either of our parents. A few are harmful. A very few are beneficial. Natural selection sorts them out. Bad ones tend to disappear, especially if they are dominant. Good ones tend to be preserved and spread in the population.

No parent is happy when an OB/GYN tells them that their unborn has a known genetic mutation.

What's good for the species may very well be not good for the individual. That's how it is.

They are easily shown to be only wishful thinking for evolutionists. They happen, but they do not support the theory.

They are confirmation of the theory, which predicts such mutations.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Some very recent useful human mutations:

4 beneficial evolutionary mutations that humans are undergoing right now

The genetic mutation that drives evolution is random. But here's a list of some beneficial mutations that are known to exist in human beings

bigthink.com

Since you can only link to these and not describe them yourself, it is pretty easy to answer. Some basics in the evolutionary theory first. In order for the evolutionary process to have actually been the reason a creature has the features we see today, there has to have been genetic changes from parent to offspring that gave that offspring better chances of surviving and reproducing in that environment as compared to offspring who do not have that change. This is the basic understanding.

Another basic understanding in science is that whatever the theory predicts, such as a mathematical formula prediction, needs to be seen in the actual living beings. For the scientist, repeating a mathematical formula without any corresponding evidence in actual living creatures is useless. It must be seen in experimental form.

The examples in the link are typical although I notice the milk tolerance one is not there. In none of the examples is there an advantage given to offspring that would enable them to be more likely to reproduce further offspring as compared to the normal population. For example, in the ability to survive a heart attack example, young men and women in their reproductive years do not generally have heart attacks. So when this advantage is known, they are long past reproductive years and will have had no advantage in reproducing this genetic effect than anyone else. No evolutionary gain to show this. In the malaria surviving adjustment, while it is true those with the defect in their genetic makeup are more likely to survive malaria, their offspring, when mating with an equally surviving partner, are more likely to have the defect from both parents and unless modern medical aid is available, the offspring will likely die of sickle cell anemia. This is hardly a genetic advantage supporting the evolutionary process, the subsequent offspring dying.

Is it like having a genetic change such that a group of the population is born without one hand under Putin who starts handcuffing and hauling away a segment of the population and all those with only one hand escape. Then they later meet and mate and produce children with no hands. It did help them survive Putin's purge but no one really thinks that is an evolutionary advantage. By the way, scientists are now trying to correct this evolutionary "improvement" because they, and anyone with the condition in any form, do not see this as an evolutionary advantage. Strange that an evolutionary "advantage" seems medical correction for survival.

It ought to be said that malformation in the genetic material is sometimes loss of information but I cannot say regarding these genetic abnormalities. Bone density increase is nice but only if there is a threat to the skeleton which is not an evolutionary advantage.

You are not the first evolutionist to try to show that genetic mutations support the evolutionary change but generally it does not convince those who do not already believe the theory. Scientists have worked on fruit flies to promote genetic changes in offspring to demonstrate that genetic changes can give advantages to subsequent offspring that are more likely to survive and reproductive but all they got was defective, dead or normal fruit flies. Not one genetic change that enable the fruit fly to better survive and reproduce increasing that change in the population occurred. Same with bacteria. Some will offer that antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an example but that usually occurs because the bacteria have lost genetic information, an outcome that needs to be understood. Some genetic changes are actual LOSS of information and that offspring cannot do what its parents could do which although might be an advantage in that environment, it is nevertheless a LOSS of information, not a gain. Your mathematical formula does not recognize a loss of information does it.

I am a scientist at heart and as such, I am trained to apply theory to real life. The formula is nice but does not match real living creatures. You need to show genetic changes that aid the offspring in reproducing better than others in the population without that change. What advantages there are later in life does not demonstrate evolution which involves the competition between creatures in reproductive years.