Random Design and New Information in the Genome

Last night I wrote a response to chapters 9-11 of Dr. Richard Colling’s book Random Designer, and I really thought my post was inadequate. Those chapters discuss the very core of evolutionary theory–variation (specifically mutation) and natural selection, including the balance between preserving information through accurate copying, but also allow new information through copying errors.

Of course, this jumps right into one of the key objections of anti-evolutionists–the production of new information. They repeatedly make the claim that variation + natural selection cannot produce new information, and they produce substantial formulas to “prove” it. Sometimes people tell me that I can’t be a Christian and accept the theory of evolution. My normal response is, “And yet here I am.” In this case I’m tempted to respond, “And yet there the new information is!” Of course, that wouldn’t answer the question.

But Dr. Steve Matheson has provided an answer on his blog, which I read shortly after writing the other piece. I was particularly glad that I read his piece right after reading Dr. Colling’s very simple explanation, because the basics of the process were fresh in my mind. It’s often hard for me to follow this information–they didn’t teach me about gene duplication in Greek class!

In any case, Dr. Matheson goes to work on a gene duplication in yeast, in a case where we can observe the operation of yeasts that have the unduplicated and unmutated form of the gene, and others that do. I’m not even going to take a stab at summarizing the science, but it’s there. The weakness of Dr. Colling’s presentation is that there are few examples. Now his book is such that it would be inappropriate to fill it with lengthy examples. One would never get to the end. But of course there will be those who say, “We can’t just take his word for this!” Well, don’t. Steve Matheson has provided some of the science that backs this up.

I should mention, of course, that for those with the stamina, you can find a great deal more in Ernst Mayr’s book What Evolution Is. The problem there, however, is that for someone like me who is not a scientist, it’s hard going. I had a dictionary in one hand and my browser open to an online encyclopedia (not Wikipedia!) throughout just so I could look up the examples. But folks like Drs. Colling and Matheson cut it down to size.

What becomes clear is that it’s really quite easy for new information to appear in the genome, and that it has happened many times. The real question is what pathways are used. The mark of a scientists is looking for new answers. The mark of a non-scientists is declaring questions closed. Scientists expect peer review. It may not always be fun, but it’s generally beneficial. Non-scientists want to get their junk out to the public who are not qualified to check it. I particularly liked this quote:

I’m a developmental biologist, and therefore partial to many of the arguments of evo-devo thinkers. I’m excited about the union of evolutionary and developmental biology, and I do think that many of the new evo-devo ideas are thought-provoking and potentially fruitful. But the debate is riveting and informative, and I find Lynch and Coyne and their talented colleagues to be alarmingly convincing. I’m worried about some of those cool ideas, but I do take some comfort in this thought: any idea that can survive the onslaught of Lynch and Coyne is a hell of a good idea.

The public needs to realize that scientists are generally operating with this type of an attitude. If they actually realized this, I believe they would be much less susceptible to the blandishments of pseudoscience.