Search Tags:

Categories:

How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part II



Uploaded by: cdk007
Video Description:
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 a
dvantage (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
Learn the facts, spread the truth, and most importantly, Think About It.


Tags for this video: Creation Debate Design DNA Education Evidence Evolution Facts Genome Hovind ID Information Intelligent Mutation

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by cdk007

Related Videos
The Evolution of Irreducible ComplexityEvidence for Evolution, Part ILodish et al 2000 Gene Expression
the-evolution-of-irreducible-complexity.htmlthe-evolution-of-irreducible-complexity.htmlthe-evolution-of-irreducible-complexity.html
Gregory Chaitin Lecture Mälardalen University 2005 Pt 4Bio DNA RNA Aminoacid part 2 of 2Organism 12 Vs. T.R @ Hultsfred 2000
the-evolution-of-irreducible-complexity.htmlthe-evolution-of-irreducible-complexity.htmlthe-evolution-of-irreducible-complexity.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
Wow you didnt just ... ( 2 months ago by Shalek)
Wow you didnt just say that... The DNA doesnt chose to code information or read it, heck the organism doesnt chose either, who made a fool out of you? It's all just a series of chemical reactions, I can't explain it all here, go and do some research.
No one is saying ... ( 2 months ago by Shalek)
No one is saying you cant believe in god and evolution at the same time...
If you can't ... ( 2 months ago by tristenmc)
If you can't explain it, then why are you bothering to respond to me?
Information is nothing without an awareness. A rock does not understand nor transmit information because it cannot distinguish bits of information. Which is basically a choice. If THIS, then THIS. But you need to be aware of THIS OR THIS in order to have any decision making process whatsoever.
You are mixing up ... ( 2 months ago by DiggityDogg56)
You are mixing up information with thinking and therefore conciousness. Placing variation out into the environment is where variation is tested for fitness to the landscape is where information is created. The information is contained in the DNA. No awareness is needed. Information is not the same as thinking. Computers can store vast amounts of information with no thinking involved, but they do not have awareness.
In order for ... ( 2 months ago by tristenmc)
In order for information to be profitable, which is what we are talking about, you need something to be self-modifying. Otherwise you end up with noise. It's as simple as that. You're last paragraph is information in English format. Meaning, you can't just type random letters, you need to have an awareness putting it into a useful format to get a desired result.
That's the way information works. Awareness (an element of consciousness) creates it and uses it.
As far as computers ... ( 2 months ago by tristenmc)
As far as computers, they have three of the four basic components of consciousness. What they are missing is that they are not Self-Modifying. If they were, then yes they would be conscious. By themselves, with no conscious help, computers can't do anything because they are not Self Modifying.
But we can put purpose into them (create a language for them, programs) and do the self modifying part for them.
Evolution is a ... ( 2 months ago by DiggityDogg56)
Evolution is a self-modifying system. Random mutations change the DNA, selective adaptation of that variation determines if it noise or useful information.
Well for me, the ... ( 2 months ago by tristenmc)
Well for me, the fact that we can not use this method to evolve anything else is pretty good evidence that this is not the way things evolve. Especially since this random mutation must occur in the DNA strand itself.
If I'm not mistaken, the simplest form of life has a DNA strand of 200,000 letters. With four different characters that could go into one slot, that leaves an astronomical number of possibilities. And one would have to assume that 90% or more would be harmful.
Using the same ... ( 2 months ago by tristenmc)
Using the same thinking, in theory, you should be able to evolve computer programs using random mutation of the binary code system. The ones that work will survive, the ones that don't will fail. Again, in THEORY, this would work. In actual implementation, you will find a frustrating sameness to random mutation.
watch?v=X04LAXvfptw
While you can write ... ( 2 months ago by DiggityDogg56)
While you can write programs to mimic evolution on a computer, computer programming is in no way like DNA. It is a set of sequentially executed instructions. Changing one instruction will ruin the entire program. This is not how DNA works. It is like a blueprint. Different parts of the code do not depend on other parts. Take a house blueprint. Modify a window, make it a few inches narrower, this modification does not destroy the whole house.
If you were to draw ... ( 2 months ago by DiggityDogg56)
If you were to draw lines from looping and branching instructions to connect all the various places a program could jump to, you would have a complete mess, the lines would black the paper out because of the extreme interconnectedness. Again, this is not how DNA works. There is nothing like looping and branching decisions going on. It is a much simpler, more passive design. A change to your hair color gene affects only your hair color, nothing else.
Evolution itself ... ( 2 months ago by DiggityDogg56)
Evolution itself may be like a computer program. The DNA is the data, and the environment is where the processing of that data, or information occurs. The environment is where decision making processes about the information is made. It is the place where the
fitness of the DNA's information to the landscape is made, and this kind of process is incredibly complex, given all of the factors that are evaluated in real time.
You would expect ... ( 2 months ago by tristenmc)
You would expect DNA to be more complex than our computer programs, and of course it is. Can a DNA strand survive a few errors. Sure, it even has error correction processes. In fact, if we knew how transposition works, we would have some of the most sophisticated software ever known to man.
So I'm not exactly sure what point you were trying to make. We have attempted to irradiate flies to cause random "beneficial" mutations and have failed to do so.
Why is that? ... ( 2 months ago by tristenmc)
Why is that? Because "randomness" rarely if ever causes beneficial mutations.
And even beneficial mutations are subject to current environmental pressures. For example, a thicker coat of fur is not going to be much help currently, when our environment is warming. So you would hope that these mutations would have a little more intelligent purpose behind it if a species is expected to survive.
watch?v=X04LAXvfptw (again)
You should be very ... ( 1 month ago by DiggityDogg56)
You should be very careful about the fruitfly radiation experiments. Many of these experiments had nothing to do with evolution, they were experiments about the gross health effects of radiation on organisms. One creationist site touted a study that used 15000 times normal radiation levels, obviously the experiment had nothing to do with evolution.
And in experiments ... ( 1 month ago by DiggityDogg56)
And in experiments that used selective pressures the flies responded as evolutionary theory predicted.
Many of the studies ... ( 1 month ago by DiggityDogg56)
Many of the studies involved genetic research and not evolution. Genetic studies of fruit flies were important in the discovery of hox genes. To claim that these experiments were about evolution is invalid.
Again, I'm puzzled ... ( 1 month ago by tristenmc)
Again, I'm puzzled as to what your point is. Are you stating that I am incorrect in saying that we have failed to artificially create a beneficial mutation using a random method?
As far as the selective pressures mutating the flies, this certainly appears to be an intelligent process and not random. Again, we are talking about random mutation. . .is it likely that all the flies would have the same beneficial "random" mutation?
No, you would ... ( 1 month ago by tristenmc)
No, you would expect one to survive and possibly it's offspring if the random trait was passed on. That is not what occurs, so clearly it must be a "learned" process. Which indicates, intelligence.
Look at the Evj ... ( 1 month ago by tomdschneider)
Look at the Evj program, tinyurl 65L3h
In computer models like this, we use pseudorandom numbers,
so the results are not predictable. (But the program can be rerun to get the same result because pseudo random numbers are computed.)
Also, a change to a single gene typically has many effects,
it's called pleotropy.
There seem to be ... ( 3 weeks ago by DURound)
There seem to be some flaws in the Gene siting thought experiment.
cdk007, I dont know ... ( 3 weeks ago by Kuartus)
cdk007, I dont know what else to say but that you are ripping creationists a new one!
you know what I mean by that right?
Any mutation that ... ( 2 weeks ago by jhbbunch)
Any mutation that is selected for positively or negatively or neutrally is information. It says something about the environment and the mutated organisms fitness to it. Selection is information. Is this mutation good, bad or indifferent? These are probable, non-determined states. When the selection process is done the number of probable states is reduced. This is information. A reduction in the probable states of a system. Shannon's Theorem, blessed be his name, says so.
Another insightful ... ( 1 week ago by ibach80)
Another insightful video. I found it very informative. However, at 0:36 "Understanding this is critical to appreciating the important findings of the study so bare with me." I don't know why I have to undress with you to understand this, but if it helps...
Thanks again!



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code