DNA from nothing

[Tristan]

Hi All,

Wow, some great replies! A couple of things I'd like to clear up though...

But since Tristan asked about "information", I tried to give her an answer in those terms.

1) I'm a guy...that's what the little

thing by my name means

2) My question wasn't that clear. I wasn't on about existing genetic information changing (e.g. 10,000,000 lego blocks being changed from NYC to Venice), my question was meant to ask if there is an increase in genetic material (e.g. 10,000 blocks >> 10,000,000) - thus the title 'DNA from nothing'. I am quite happy with the notion of existing genetic information changing/mutating.

I ask the question because obviously if evolution was how life started, then there had to be an increase from somewhere...the entire DNA spiral structure didn't happen overnight. It had to start somewhere and grow from that.

So my question is "Is there any observed occurances of new genetic material being generated?
e.g. 100101010100 >> 101000101010010010100101010101"

Hope that clears up a couple of things

Thanks and God bless,

Tris

PS - I haven't had time to look up the appropriate technical terms for all the parts of DNA, so you'll have to bear with me for a while...as soon as I get time I'll try to make it a bit clearer.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Josephus
Our genome is huge, yet contains seemingly endless sequences of garbage information.

Would it seem more plausible that these sequences are the result of genetic mutation which made them lose their original function, or the ADDITION of more sequences? Which is more probable: the mutation of a sequence going bad, or the ADDITION of a new sequence?

The answer (which is the former) ultimately, is my premise to the idea that there is a net information loss over time, hence, deevolution.

What types of non-function DNA are you refering too? Some (e.g. pseudogenes) are the result of mutations turning them off. Others (e.g. transposons) are the result of new sequencies being inserted into DNA.

Until you provide an example, it is impossible to say which process is responsible.

 

[Jerry Smith]

1) I'm a guy...that's what the little thing by my name means

Open mouth, insert foot.. Very sorry about that, MR. Tristan.

2) My question wasn't that clear. I wasn't on about existing genetic information changing (e.g. 10,000,000 lego blocks being changed from NYC to Venice), my question was meant to ask if there is an increase in genetic material (e.g. 10,000 blocks >> 10,000,000) - thus the title 'DNA from nothing'. I am quite happy with the notion of existing genetic information changing/mutating.

Right. The answer to that is gene duplication, and sometimes even full chromomosome duplication. In fact, there are cases where all of the chromosomes are duplicated or even "triplicated". There is also the occasional insertion event, where a few extra nucleotides are added between (or in the middle of) one or more genes.

Good question. If you have any more follow up, please let us know!

 

[Josephus]

"What types of non-function DNA are you refering too? Some (e.g. pseudogenes) are the result of mutations turning them off. Others (e.g. transposons) are the result of new sequencies being inserted into DNA."

I'm merely quoting another user from this thread who said DNA has nonfunctional sequences. If there are nonfunctional sequences (which there are) they simply don't function! So in my statements I'm including any sequences that are not functional! And if I add an obvious stipulation to my descriptions of them, then it shouldn't take a scientist with an 8 year degree in biology to figure out what I mean. So in essence and in answer to your question, I am referring to nonfunctional sequences of DNA which are made by bad mutations which destroy current DNA sequences.

If you want to pretened to be a scientist on this board, please at least use your scientific prowess to understand someone.

If a third grader can't read these conversations and be enlightened, then these kinds of threads serve no useful purpose to the aims and goals of this message board.

Though to be fair, I do believe it is more than possible to explain things like this and not use a lot of jargon your average curious bystander isn't going to know - and be able to add their opinion to it. After all, we're after making people think for themselves and not in fact making them memorize someone else's "accepted" opinion or theory.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Josephus,

I suggest you follow your first rule.

1. Be kind to your fellow poster. No name calling. No flame-inciting language.

And tone down your flame-inciting language.

I saw no quote in your post, so I don't know what "quoting another user" you are refering too.

Your statement assumed that all nonfunctioning DNA had the same origin. I just pointed out that that is not the case. Insulting me and my capacity as a scientist is not going to change the errors in your post.

 

[ardipithecus]

This thread is starting to put the cart before the horse.

Before we can argue whether or not the information content of DNA can increase, we need to actually define what information actually is. This is not as easy a thing as one might guess. There are two major ways various information professionals define information and they are contradictory. Something that results in information
going up for one definition can have it going down in
the other. (This is not as illogical as it sounds,
one version of information is useful one set of purposes
and the other version of what information is is useful
for another set of purposes.) And there are yet other ways to define information than the main two which are called Shannon and Kolmogorov-Chaitin respectively. Do a web search if you want to know what they are.

Thus the question is, how are we defining information
when we are discussing genome evolution? Also the question needs to asked if whether or not the definition of informatin being proposed is relevant to biology.

The confussion of different types of information is often behind the claim of DNA info can't increase.

If we define information in an informal sense of "how to build a protein" than clearly information content can go up via duplication followed by mutation.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Josephus
So in short, there is no such thing as increased genetic information within a species over time - all "new" information is just "changed" information?

Sorry to take so long. The meaning of "information" as used in this thread is too vague to make any really meaningful statements about, but in the sense that I understand your use of the term you are half right: You are right that it is just changed information, but you would be wrong to say that those changes do not result in new information. Since the information is merely "the order in which amino acids will be assembled in a protein", any change to the "information" will result in a new piece of information, i.e. new assembly instructions.

 

[LouisBooth]

just wondering why you don't have any info on your profile jerry...? like your birthday, etc...just wondering?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
just wondering why you don't have any info on your profile jerry...? like your birthday, etc...just wondering?

Because I cannot see any relevance to my vital statistics, and to avoid the tendancy for controversial discussions to become ad hominem.

Jerry Smith is my real name, and I always post under it, no matter what forum I am posting in. I don't have a lot of biographical information anyway. I'm just kind of a nobody. I put "Chattanooga, TN" in my profile, because I am proud of my town, and I like to give people a chance to say "hey, I'm from near there!"

I don't see why you would need any extra biographical information from me to tell whether or not my posts are topical, accurate, or reasonable... After all, I am posting in the science forum, not politics...

 

[LouisBooth]

Hmm...well most people that don't put info are seemingly because they might have something to hide, though I'm not thinking along those lines..just wondering. I've thought about it lately, all these science people come on here to debate when to be more productive they should be going to schools and not on the net to make a real difference...I was just wondering that's all..sorry to intrude on your "personal life".

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
I've thought about it lately, all these science people come on here to debate when to be more productive they should be going to schools and not on the net to make a real difference...

It takes two to tango. I don't think any science advocate would be debating on the net, if Professional Creationists weren't trying to use the net to present their story to a public that isn't familiar with the scientific side of it.

Its really as simple as that. We appreciate sites like Christian Forums that allow both sides of the controversy to be presented fairly. I think that those who are reading through these forums and trying to decide on an educated opinion like the fact that it isn't only one side being presented here, too.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I think that those who are reading through these forums and trying to decide on an educated opinion like the fact that it isn't only one side being presented here, too."

I'd say less the 1/10 of 1 percent come on here thinking hey, I'm going to learn something and let my view be effected. (in terms of the topic of evolution).

 

[Jerry Smith]

Maybe not. I think that there are a lot of people out there who have never really thought much about the topic. They may come to a forum like this and become interested in learning more. If the side of science isn't presented, they may go away thinking that evolutionary biologists are all what the Professional Creationists would make them out to be: liars and cranks. If both sides are presented, then they may be provoked to think about the subject, and look at the evidence.

One of these people may be the one teaching my kid's science class next year - or even deciding his curriculum!

 

[LouisBooth]

ahh..well in all my board experience, I'd have to humbly disagree.