If so, where did the information go? (See below.) As you imply with your question, it is not very useful to try to define the information content of a genome in terms of either   perfect or its external environment because that leads to the absurdities you have indicated (where did it go?) It does appear that defining   information content is a problem but on the other hand it is also obvious (I think) that complex life forms need to have more information content in their DNA than simple single celled creatures in order to guide the awesomely complex development process not to mention their complex maintenance and repair processes. So far, I don't have a clue as to how to develop a rationale to refute the arguments of Wilder-Smith. But I do thank you all for taking the time to try to help me out on this. Bob

Every cell of your body has the same DNA (modulo mutations) as the original fertilized egg that grew into you, so no new information need be created in taking a single cell to a human being.  It has to get replicated a lot, of course. I agree with you. I reversed myself on this a moment ago. Goes to show how much intuition is worth on this sort of thing, doesn't it? This might also explain why the person I mentioned before claimed that a single fertilized egg cell was as complex as a fully grown person. (I actually misstated his position slightly). On the other hand, I wonder whether the connections in the brain, which seem to form almost magically, would enter into the equation somewhere? Wilder-Smith never talked about this factor, or did he? So far we have only discussed the DNA inside the cells, but is it possible that we are dealing with a distributed network sort of like the internet and that this has an effect on any analysis that we do? Bob

As Wade Hines pointed out, gene duplication is one method of adding information.  Although the new gene starts out as simply a duplication of the old, mutation and selection can work on that gene until it has changed significantly.  It's like duplicating a message and then allowing random changes on the new half through a selection filter. If the duplication has not added information then we are back to square one trying to decide whether a random change can add information to a message. Again, this critically depends on how information is defined. In the Shannon-Weaver sense, gene duplication results in more information as the compressibility of the message is decreased (in the algorithmic complexity sense the length of the de_script_or increases). From a function point of view, duplication by itself may not increase information (but can if the enzyme is the rate limiting step in a critical pathway), but duplication and subsequent mutation can. To go back to the trypsin example, imagine that the gene for trypsin was duplicated, then a mutation in one copy converts that trypsin gene to one for chymotrypsin. One now has two functional enzymes, and one enzyme with a new function. That could be described as an increase in information . What is needed here is an explicit formulation of the Wilder-Smith definition of information . Gene duplication as the origin of new genetic information: Wagner A. The fate of duplicated genes: loss or new function? BioEssays 1998, 20: 785-788. review, shows that about 50% of duplicated eucaryotic genes acquire new functions. Babbitt PC, Gerlt JA. Understanding enzyme superfamilies. J Biol Chem, 1997, 272, 30591-30594. Mini-review, shows how enzymes acquire new functions. Cheers! Ian

It does appear that defining   information content is a problem but on the other hand it is also obvious (I think) that complex life forms need to have more information content in their DNA than simple single celled creatures in order to guide the awesomely complex development process not to mention their complex maintenance and repair processes. So far, I don't have a clue as to how to develop a rationale to refute the arguments of Wilder-Smith. But I do thank you all for taking the time to try to help me out on this. Humans are more complicated than bacteria, true. But a hurricane is more complicated than the atmospheric wave which gave rise to the hurricane. Does the hurricane embody more information ? If so, where did it come from? The absurdity is the answer. Wilder-Smith has not properly defined the information content of a genome. Arguments _base_d on inadequte definitions are not rigorous and do not require refutation.

And another bit concerning computation and natural selection: http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/antiec.html I will try to take a look at this one as time permits. Bob

BSBWes, thank you for the information and reference. WREHere's a previous essay that looks at one of Wilder-Smith's WREclaims in some detail: WREhttp://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/... BSBI took a quick look at this and found it was very BSBsubjective and leaned heavily on the creation of genetic BSBalgorithms to make its case. Well, some points that are not subjective include Wilder-Smith claiming that the lack of computational analogues of natural selection falsified natural selection, and the fact that such computational analogues do exist, which means, _object_ively, that Wilder-Smith was wrong in that assertion.  This can be verified by anyone checking the sources, which makes it eminently _object_ive. BSBIMHO the name given to these programs is somewhat misleading BSBsince only the data sets being controlled by the program are BSBsubjected to random change, whereas in the DNA the entire set BSBis potentially able to change. Where is the misleading part?  That seems not to have been identified.  Besides which, evolutionary computation does include successful genetic programming as well as genetic algorithms.  Genetic programming is harder, but it has been done. BSBIf we applied random change to the instructions in the BSBalgorithm it would be a more realistic simulation. Classic goalpost-moving.  Wilder-Smith wasn't discussing realism, just whether natural selection could be instantiated in the form of computer programs.  It was.  Deal with it. WREWhich book by Wilder-Smith?  What pages?  My guess: The WRECreation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution, ~1970, WREaround page 250.  I've dealt with Wilder-Smith's computational WRE_object_ions before. BSBNo, the book is The Scientific Alternative to BSBNeo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory , 1987 Page numbers? WREAnd another bit concerning computation and natural selection: WREhttp://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/antiec.html BSBI will try to take a look at this one as time permits. Good.  Creationist _object_ion #4 from that is essentially equivalent to the statement I labeled as goalpost-moving above.