Proof of Evolution

[JudgeMental]

Foreword: When I say "you" I may not really mean "you." When I say "you" I am generally addressing those who disagree with me.

A warning; don't confuse information with order. I don't remember the formal definitions, but just because a system has order does not mean it has a lot of information. A great deal of order can be developed from just a little information. Diamonds, as it so happens, is nearly the ideal example of this effect. Just a bit of information that dictates how a carbon molecule should align under enough heat and pressure. Multiply this tidbit of information by a few trillion times, and presto! A perfectly ordered diamond. Do the same thing with DNA, and you get useless DNA. It must retain order, yet have meaningful variation to remain viable; in other words, both order and variation are required to achieve any meaningful levels of information. Meaningful being a relative term of course...

Anyway, I was rather amused with this discussion... I don't have anything to add, per say, but I do have one question I'd nearly forgotten about. I'd been looking for an answer for some time.

Well, I have two questions, really. And they're very broad.

First question, how does a natural system add information to its genetic makeup? I am aware of three basic kinds of mutations. One is where genetic information is simply destroyed. Two, genetic information isn't lost, but it's changed. Three, errors during mitosis cause additional copies of one or more pieces of genetic code to be generated.

The first one looses information, the second is an even trade, and the third I am aware of NO examples of this kind of mutation where the net result is an advantage. Down's Syndrome is an example of this kind of genetic error. Admittedly, I'm not exactly an expert geneticist, but I've had a hard time finding good sources on this.

By now I have forgotten what my second question was! But just so I didn't disappoint everybody, I came up with another one! This particular one is original to me, and I have actually asked before. I don't even know how to BEGIN to research it.

Here's the problem. A note; it mostly applies to sexual reproduction (the other kind is no fun anyway). How does a mutation in a SINGLE gene propagate through a species? The chances of a mutation of ANY kind happening in a physical location where it is possible to sexually propagate said mutation becomes exponentially less as the zygote develops into an embryo and so forth. In other words, the only obvious time is when the plant/animal in question is still merely one or two cells (ovum/sperm, or zygote). The answer to my question is obvious, but given the incredibly small window of opportunity involved, the genetic stability of modern plants and animals (at least, that's what I've heard), and other problems that tend to crop up with genetic mutation creates a difficult barrier to surmount.

What I'm looking for is some kind of explanation for how this problem is surmounted in evolutionary theory. If the answer is going to be 'time,' it's gonna have to be useless in my book unless it has adequate sourcing and logic. I'm much more friendly to evolution than I used to be, but to me using the word 'time' as an explanation when talking about evolution is as annoying to me as it is to you when somebody says "God did it."

[collegestudent22]

Well, I have two questions, really. And they're very broad.

First question, how does a natural system add information to its genetic makeup? I am aware of three basic kinds of mutations. One is where genetic information is simply destroyed. Two, genetic information isn't lost, but it's changed. Three, errors during mitosis cause additional copies of one or more pieces of genetic code to be generated.

The third also does not create any new information. It merely creates copies of what is already there. So where does the new information come from in any scenario?

[Deacon]

If you're right about information, then why would information need to be lost or gained? Why can't it switch places with another bit of information to slightly alter the outcome or otherwise run into another strand and win out or lose out, etc? Why can't the repeats that cause such drastic differences within the same species be grafted in from one source (say the sperm) over another (such as the egg)?

[JudgeMental]

Because in order to evolve from some amoeba to, say, a leopard, requires an increase in information. What you're speaking of, Deacon, is the rearranging and modification of previously existing information. If mutation could only result in at best a zero net change in the amount of genetic information contained by a living organism, then it could not serve as evolution's vehicle of change. Therefore, some form of mutation or set of mutations must serve to increase the amount of genetic information possessed by an organism.

[Deacon]

Because in order to evolve from some amoeba to, say, a leopard, requires an increase in information.

By how much? You seem to be suggesting that new strains of DNA must be added to the mix. So how much longer is the DNA in a leopard than in an amoeba? I guess we can leave rna and such out of it for now.

Also, just because the only increase in information you're familiar with results in a mutation you generally view as unhelpful (i.e. down's) doesn't mean all must be.

[JudgeMental]

I have no idea how much more DNA is needed to bring an amoeba to a leopard, that was merely an example to address your question as to why information needs to be lost or gained. By evolutionary theory, the earliest life would have had much less information than most modern life. Therefore, evolution must have a mechanism to add genetic information as well. So yes, I am saying there must be a way of adding DNA to the mix, at least as one possible way of increasing the ability to store information.

As for your second part, that's exactly what I'm asking. IS there a way of adding genetic information that viably adds survivability?

[Deacon]

One of the largest genomes belongs to a very small creature, Amoeba dubia. This protozoan genome has 670 billion units of DNA, or base pairs. (source) Compare that to Homo sapiens's 2.9 billion.

Needless to say, I question your assertion regarding genome length and what you allege "evolutionary theory" claims. Honestly, and trust me when I say I mean no disrespect, it just shows a true lack of knowledge and understanding of genetics and evolutionary theory.

[JudgeMental]

*facepalm*

No offense Deacon, but that tidbit of information is entirely irrelevant. Unless you're going to claim that the very first functioning cell contained hundreds or thousands of billions of strands of DNA. Then reductive forms of mutation would work quite fine. But you're taking my example way, WAY too far now. So I shall rephrase my question as carefully as I can.

What mechanisms exist to increase the amount of genetic information present in a living organism over time?

I'm the first to admit that I'm no expert in this area. But I'm not ignorant either. I'm ignoring a LOT of things concerning genetic structure and how it works. But if I got too talkative, my question would never be answered! We'd get dragged down into a debate about whether the amount of genetic information really matters and does the expression of the genome count for more, or something like that. I have more reasoning behind asking this question, but GAH! My understanding or lack of it has nothing to do with your ability to answer the question.

So while I'm thinking of it, allow me to broaden my question, while defining it better.

How could a simple organism, containing no more information than it needs to survive and reproduce (imagine some arbitrary point where self-replicating molecules would be recognized as a functioning cell) over time increase the level information needed for it to become a complex multicellular organism? Specifically, what biological mechanism or process allows for this?

[Deacon]

Because in order to evolve from some amoeba to, say, a leopard, requires an increase in information.

One of the largest genomes belongs to a very small creature, Amoeba dubia. This protozoan genome has 670 billion units of DNA, or base pairs. (source) Compare that to Homo sapiens's 2.9 billion.

*facepalm*

No offense Deacon, but that tidbit of information is entirely irrelevant.

...

I don't know what to say.

What mechanisms exist to increase the amount of genetic information present in a living organism over time?

Combinations of genes? Out of curiosity, how do you expect me to know how long the genome of the first living organism was?

How could a simple organism, containing no more information than it needs to survive and reproduce (imagine some arbitrary point where self-replicating molecules would be recognized as a functioning cell) over time increase the level information needed for it to become a complex multicellular organism?

Without even getting into it (as I'm not the expert), you're begging the question. You're setting up a goal based purely on your own assumptions and then demanding to know how I intend to reach it. Why would you even assert that the only information it could have is barely enough for it to survive? What about repeats? What about starting out with 670 billion base pairs and swapping and juking and jiving and honing them down from there? Genome length seems to have little to do with evolutionary complexity.

[JudgeMental]

Deacon, I am not trying to construct a logical argument. I don't care if you could create a human from only 300 genes and some duct tape. I am asking for my own edification. You don't need to know the beginning number of genes for me to ask how you can increase the number of genes in succession of related organisms. My question doesn't even require increasing the number of genes. Maybe adding variation to how existing genes are expressed would work.

It's a very simple question. I have no ulterior motive. I want to know what biological mechanisms or processes exist that allow for an increase in total genetic information over time in a single organism of a given species (perhaps to the point of making it another species).

I'm looking at this on the individual level, not the species level. At the species level, the amount of information increases through diversity. But at the individual level, a single organism can only hold so much genetic information. How is this capacity increased?

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear, but I don't know how to be any more simple.

[Deacon]

Deacon, I am not trying to construct a logical argument.

Ah...?

You don't need to know the beginning number of genes for me to ask how you can increase the number of genes in succession of related organisms. My question doesn't even require increasing the number of genes. Maybe adding variation to how existing genes are expressed would work. ...I want to know what biological mechanisms or processes exist that allow for an increase in total genetic information over time in a single organism of a given species (perhaps to the point of making it another species). ...But at the individual level, a single organism can only hold so much genetic information. How is this capacity increased?

I don't see how those statements are congruent, honestly. I'm flummoxed. The only thing I can think to ask is maybe to clarify wtf you mean by "genetic information", but...

[collegestudent22]

What about starting out with 670 billion base pairs and swapping and juking and jiving and honing them down from there? Genome length seems to have little to do with evolutionary complexity.

No offense, Deacon, but starting with 670 billion base pairs would seem extremely unlikely. It would be MUCH more likely that if a cell was created by chance, and not an outside force, it would have the least amount of pairs in order to create a living organism. Not to mention the fact that there are many systems within the cell that must have come into being at the same time, and mutations could not occur without a basis to start from (ie: DNA must already exist to have mutations, which are supposedly the only thing working in evolution).

[JermCool]

That would be dependant on how far back we're trying to go. Primordial Soup Theory goes even before cells. That somehow amino acids were created through sheer dumb luck and grew themselves into RNA, then DNA sequences.

[collegestudent22]

That amino acids can be created abiotically, I don't doubt. But that they can randomly join together in a comprehensive pattern that could create a living being's code and create the proteins necessary to create the DNA.... it's kind of a chicken or the egg question there.... As well as the fact that your source points out the fact that sugars are necessary for DNA, but they do not think those sugars existed before life was complex enough to create them....

Not to mention the fact that we know that Dr. Miller's original experiment was flawed, as the original atmosphere was not methane-based..... and if there was any oxygen at all, the probability of having life-conducive materials created goes significantly down...

[Deacon]

No offense, Deacon, but starting with 670 billion base pairs would seem extremely unlikely. It would be MUCH more likely that if a cell was created by chance, and not an outside force, it would have the least amount of pairs in order to create a living organism.

No offense, but you're offensive.

Not to mention the fact that there are many systems within the cell that must have come into being at the same time

Why?