Originally posted by ushomefree
What I mean by the increase of an organism's genome, refers to the addition of "previously" non-existent genetic information. For example, let us pretend that an earth worm contains 10 bits of genetic information, I am implying "by increase," that the genome will sum to 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15. This does not occur in nature.
The way I understood it (from High School biology), would be that there are two answers to that. One that DNA is similar to an anagram (I quickly wikipedia'd an anagram for my example). For example you might have the words "Eleven plus two", now when mutations happen it likely becomes gibberish like "lvepeen sul wot" which is obviously not useful in any way, but it might possibly in some rare cases (if I had listened to my Maths prof I could even tell you the likelihood of that event) turn into "Twelve plus one", which, if it is more useful than the code "Eleven plus two" is likely to be successful and in time will possibly become the new standard of the organisms.
As for just an additional information. Don't people with down syndrome have a whole additional chromosome, isn't that an increase in the amount of information at least? I don't think that's the way evolution happens, but I believe it fits your question.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Again, very good question; but genetic information is not measured, much like you would in terms of value. Genetic information is "information." Each "bit," if I may state so plainly, is simply an "instruction." This has nothing to do with numeral values, in terms of cost and effect.
To come back to my last argument. There are at least two methods of "new" information I can think of. To give another example, if there was a binary code called "1101" and this would now (by what means ever) be changed into either "1101001" or "1110" that would both be "new" information. In one case the old might still be there and there'd be additional information and in the other the old information would have transformed into new one. I believe both has been observed, inimalist at least says so and I trust him to have an acceptable knowledge of Evolution.
Originally posted by ushomefree
As previously stated, genetic mutations are errors within and/or of "pre-existing" genetic information. Again, genetic mutations are virtually identical to corrupted computer software. If "bits" of computer software information becomes corrupt, it becomes useless; and it renders the software (over all, because all information compliments one another) dead. The same phenomena applies to genetic information with an organism's genome.
I think that is a pretty good example. Just that Software does not "corrupt" as often as organisms copy each other and that the code used is probably less useful to form new good software. But I generally agree, I think if there was a way to make Software "corrupt" itself (i.e. add or subtract errors) and there was a way that makes the corrupter software lose out to more useful software then, just as in evolution, the software would, over time, even though most the "corruptions" decrease the value of the software, get software that is superior to the one started out with.
For example. If there is a line in the software that says "Count to 100", then most corruptions will lead to gibberish in the software, but every once in a while there would be superior code, that would be more useful than all the other codes and by that standard "survive" and "pass it on", so that, after a very long time, this code might have turned into "Count to 100, unless user says otherwise".
In this example neither the invisible hand of "survival of the fittest" nor how it is passed on is present. But I think it gives a pretty good view of what evolution is about, at least as I understand it.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Nature does not have customer services and hot-lines in the event of errors and complications; and organisms do not have Norton Utility and re-write scripts to correct information in error. The organism simply dies and/or mutates. Either way, it is not beneficial. It spells doom.
Usually yes. But in those rare cases where the error makes the program more powerful it becomes a trait that is likely to be passed on.
Originally posted by ushomefree
In any case, genetic information in error does create/produce information that was "previously" non-existent. Genetic mutations are simply errors within existent information--a dead end.
I think my anagram example is relatively good in showing that even an error can produce advantage. If, in the first example, there would also be a mechanism that would make each letter being at the new position more likely, it would relatively fast morph into the new sentence.
Originally posted by ushomefree
I appreciate your honesty, I failed to tell you that.
Thank you. I don't think it is necessary to claim proficiency in a field that I don't have it in. Others do and I try to participate as well as I can.
Obviously everyone that wants to answer your questions can do so, if it is up to me. Like inimalist said, I don't mind. I likely angered DigiMark and inimalist with my layman version of biology and probably Da Pittman with my example in binary code...damn people knowing better about what I try explaining!!