How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part II

In this video I introduce Information Theory and show how it can be applied to information storage in DNA. This video is a bit technical, but it is critical to understand these points to counter creationist ignorance. I have boiled it down as much as I can.

The second half of the video presents a study by Dr. Thomas Schneider, which was published in 2000 in Nucleic Acids Research. This study simulates a small genome containing a gene that codes for a DNA binding protein and a stretch of DNA containing 16 sites that if that protein binds to any of them the organism will gain a fitness advantage. The result of this simulation clearly shows that natural selection coupled with random mutations will lead to a steady increase in information over generations.

There is one interesting aspect of the study I could not fit into the video. As I mentioned, the binding sites are 6 nucleotides long and therefore can store up to 12 bits of information, but looking closely at the data you see that the information content plateaus at 4 bits (slide at 8 minutes). Why is this? Why doesn't the information content continue to increase past this point? Information Theory makes a clear prediction. Since there are 16 sites in a genome 256 nucleotides long, each site only needs to store 4 bits each to be recognized. To put it another way. If I wanted to specify one unique site out of 256 I would need 8 bits (log2(256) = 8) but if I wanted to specify 2 sites out of 256 it would be the same as specifying 1 site out of 128 so I would only need (log2(128) = 7) 7 bits. If we continue this, if I want to specify 16 sites out of 256 it is the same as 1 site out of 16 which requires (log2(16) = 4) 4 bits. The evolution does not proceed past 4 bits since it offers no further fitness advantage (4 bits is enough to make 0 mistakes). Now if the binding sites were restricted to only 2 nucleotides those would become fixed (2 nucleotides * 2 bits = 4 bits). Since it is restricted to 6 nucleotides the consensus is not as fixed (i.e. it is slightly degenerate). This matches exactly what is seen in nature when scientists look at the sequences of binding sites for proteins like transcription factors. So in short, Information Theory makes a prediction that is confirmed by the biology.

As I showed in my first video and reiterate here

Random Mutations + Natural Selection = Increase in Information

Many thanks to Dr. Schneider for performing the study that this video is based on.

To download this video go to:
http://www.mediafire.com/?b1txyn2yeht

If you wish to translate this video you can download the PowerPoint file from:
http://www.mediafire.com/?obt2i2mjzjz

Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Evolution
• Intelligent
• Design
• ID
• Creation
• Debate
• Evidence
• Education
• Facts
• DNA
• Information
• Mutation
• Genome
• Hovind

[types10000]

@bestvalue

"I'm saying that many papers gets published where the experiments are never repeated by anyone due to lack of funding or other reasons"

- Peer review panels are organized for the purpose of identifying illogical/inconsistent and erroneous data

- Once a paper is published it is subjected to the scrutiny of the entire scientific community FOREVER, any of whom can debunk it with their own paper.

How is what you've just suggested a problem in such a system?.

[types10000]

@bestvalue

"Further, when a prediction by I.D. is made that is right (all DNA will be found to serve a function)"

a). this is incorrect (as i just demonstrated using ERV's)

b). it commits the argument from ignorance logical fallacy ie. it assumes there is function even where none is evident (which is utterly stupid when we know for a fact parts of the genome arnt eg. ERV's)

GET SMARTER

[types10000]

@bestvalue

"OMG! Has the theory of evolution become so unfalsifiable..."

- evolution is very falsifiable, i can give you several ways off the top of my head

"it makes a prediction that is wrong (parts of DNA will be found to serve no function"

- incorrect, we know for a fact parts of the genome are non-functional. i already provided an example of an observable process that causes this ie. Endogenus retrovirus' = inert viral fragments inserted as resulted of failed replication in sex cells

[types10000]

@bestvalue

"You have no idea that this is true. This is an ad hoc explanation just like many others that are employed to rescue evolution's failed predictions."

incorrect, as i already point-out we know the appendix isnt meant to function as a storehouse for bacteria in the exact same way we know a car isnt meant to function as a house for hobos

ie.

- We observe working variants of it.

- We know what parts are missing from it inorder to make it function as they do.

[bestvalue]

@types10000 "the fact it has been co-opted as a store for bacteria"

You have no idea that this is true. This is an ad hoc explanation just like many others that are employed to rescue evolution's failed predictions.

[bestvalue]

@types10000 I'm not referring to whining by anybody or anybody's papers being rejected. I'm saying that many papers gets published where the experiments are never repeated by anyone due to lack of funding or other reasons. The unverified findings are then taken as gospel because they went through the peer-review system.

[bestvalue]

@types10000 OMG! Has the theory of evolution become so unfalsifiable now that when it makes a prediction that is wrong (parts of DNA will be found to serve no function), excuses are made to salvage the theory? Further, when a prediction by I.D. is made that is right (all DNA will be found to serve a function), it still doesn't get any credit? Shameful! That's when you realize that evolution is based on little more than BLIND FAITH. You just proved that to me.

[types10000]

@bestvalue

"And it's being discovered that DNA which is thought to serve no purpose actually has important functions. That's evidence of design."

...what?

How exactly do you get from:

'This segment of DNA was re-examined and found to do something'

To:

'This is evidence of intelligent design'

The fact DNA CAN do things was never in question nor does it indicate intelligent design, the fact an instance that was thought to do nothing was later found to do something does not change this.

[types10000]

@bestvalue

"We should learn a lesson from the history of human vestigial structures like the appendix"

The appendix is directly analogous to a broken car being used as a home for bums.

- The fact we observe so many in the animal kingdom means we know what it is and know what is missing inorder to make it function as it's supposed to.

- the fact it has been co-opted as a store for bacteria; whose uselessness is demonstrated in the populations born without an appendix, does not change this.