Re: I've also read Spetner's book
Susan Brassfield (susan-brassfield@ou.edu)
Thu, 16 Sep 1999 09:42:59 -0600>At 09:56 PM 09/14/1999 -0400, Tim wrote:
>
>>Although it may seem trivial, the easiest example of demonstrating
>>that a *single* point mutation can "result in an increase in genomic
>>information" (Spetner's definition, not mine), is a reverse-mutation,
>>which converts a mutated base in a non-functional gene back to the
>>original base. After all, if a point mutation which wipes out the
>>function of a gene is described as losing information, how would we
>>describe a reverse-mutation which perfectly restores the original
>>sequence?
>
Arthur V. Chadwick wrote:
>That does not qualify as a gain in information, and you know that.
>If the information is already present, deleting then restoring it is not
>what anybody means by an increase in information. Producing the system
>necessary to convert a reptilian scale into an avian feather involves an
>increase in information of the system.
does it really? why? I'm no biologist, but this doesn't make sense. It
sounds like you are saying that skin has less information (or more) than
hair. How do you know whether or not the information (genes, DNA or
whatever) hasn't merely been rearranged?
Susan
----------
"Life itself is the proper binge."
--Julia Child
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/