Random Mutation, Natural Selection, and Information

This new video from the Discovery Institute is a clear and concise explanation of why we should doubt the power of random mutations and natural selection to build new, functional information content in DNA. Here are some excerpts, but watch the whole video (below) to see the helpful way they illustrate the truth of this:

According to modern evolutionary theory, new proteins and new forms of animal life arise through random genetic mutations, sifted by natural selection. But in an alphabetic text or a section of computer code, random changes typically degrade meaning, or functionality, and ultimately generate gibberish.

STEPHEN MEYER: “As we've come to appreciate the digital or typographic character of genetic information…it raises some really interesting questions about the efficacy of that mutation-driven mechanism…. If you start making random changes to a section of computer code, you're much more likely to degrade the information that's there already than you are to come up with a new operating system or program.” …

Scientists in the 1960s didn't know how many of [the possible arrangements of amino acids] were actually functional…. That didn't stop evolutionary biologists from speculating. Many argued that there must be a high proportion of functional sequences among all possible sequences so that a random search for a new functional sequence would have a high probability of success.

STEPHEN MEYER: “The way they did that is to say, well maybe biological sequences are…not nearly as picky about which characters are where as written language is or as computer code is…. Maybe proteins don't really care which amino acid is where and there’s a great deal of variability, and therefore you can have the same function performed by a huge number of protein chains and a huge number of genes.”

But recent experiments in molecular biology and protein science have replaced speculation with data. These experiments have established that DNA-based sequences capable of making functional proteins are, in fact, extremely rare among the vast number of possible sequences….

For even a single functioning protein fold to arise, the mutation selection mechanism would have time to search just a tiny fraction of the total number of relevant sequences—one ten-trillion-trillion-trillionth of the total possibilities. It follows that it is overwhelmingly likely that a random mutational search would have failed to produce even one new functional protein fold in the entire history of life on Earth.

Comments

[RonH]

Meyer...

Many argued that there must be a high proportion of functional sequences among all possible sequences so that a random search for a new functional sequence would have a high probability of success.

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that a 'random search' would require a 'high proportion of functional sequences'.

What if the search isn't random, Amy?

Have you thought about that?

Have you investigated that?

[RonH]

Is it the claim of the theory of evolution that the search is random throughout sequence space?

[RonH]

Answer: The search - according to the the theory of evolution - is isn't random throughout sequence space.

The search is concentrated near functioning sequences.

Why?

Because a lot of mutations change the existing sequence very very little.

[RonH]

correction:

Answer: The search - according to the the theory of evolution - isn't random throughout sequence space.

[Phillip A]

Why is it the Christian apologetics organizations and political think tanks that are doing all the hard-hitting intelligent design work, and not universities, the NSF, the NIH, etc.? Why can I count the number of biology Ph.D.s who publicly support intelligent design on one hand? Why does the Discovery Institute hire so few biologists, and so many lawyers? What is Stephen Myer, a history and philosophy Ph.D., doing talking about protein folding?

Oh right, that's because if any biologist with a university position DARES to speak the TRUTH about the obviously false theory of evolution, then the U.N. Secular Humanist Anti-Christianity Death Panel has him or her fired right there ON. THE. SPOT.

[Nickolas D.]

The reason Christian apologists are doing this task and not biologists is because the Christian worldview contains the obvious truth regarding the origins of life. The data discussed in the video that we now know about generating new organisms will never hit mainstream academia for the reasons implied by Phillip A's post. This shows that seeking the truth (wherever it leads) is not what evolutionary scientists are in the game for. This is a battle of worldviews...always has been.

[Bill K]

I can think of two pretty compelling reasons:
1) Apologists are so blinded by their faith that they discount any and all empirical evidence that contradicts their old scriptures
2) (and this is worse) Apologists are cynically manufacturing fear, uncertainty and doubt about evolution hoping to keep the sheep in line.

[RonH]

Phillip A, Bill K,

You're both committing genetic fallacies.

It's better to respond to what Meyer says instead of running down his qualifications.

And it's better not to speculate about the thoughts and motives of others: You just don't know.

Do you like it when people tell you your thoughts and motives?

Responding to what Meyer says is easy.

If you don't find it easy, then hold your peace and study.

[kpolo]

RonH:

"The search - according to the the theory of evolution - isn't random throughout sequence space."

So evolutionary processes are random when directed-processes are inconvenient and directed when random processes are inconvenient?

How convenient! :)

[RonH]

kpolo,

When I said...

The search - according to the the theory of evolution - isn't random throughout sequence space.

...I was not invoking direction.

According to the theory (1) mutations act on existing sequences and (2) frequently don't change the existing sequence much.

Can we agree on 1 and 2? I think so.

So the random search is concentrated (in sequence space) near existing sequences.

Hence the random search is not random throughout sequence space.

______________________________________________________________________________________

We hear: All of sequence space is SO BIG!!!

But mutation of existing functional sequences doesn't search all of sequence space.

And you know what?

Known functional proteins are not uniformly distributed all over sequence space.

Known functional proteins are, in fact, grouped in 'families' whose members share sequence similarities.

As predicted by the theory of evolution.

[WisdomLover]

It's better to respond to what Meyer says instead of running down his qualifications.

Ron, this quote, and the entire post containing it was a very fair and reasonable set of thoughts. I wish all of us, myself included, could always do that well.

Thanks for that.

[Daniel]

Great post, Amy! Very informative.