The simple answer is that the information in genetic material is information about the environment. Specifically, information on how a biological creature may survive and reproduce in that environment.

In a static environment with few pressures, organisms still change but will tend to "drift"; this can be considered genetic "noise". When an environment changes, organisms adapt to suit, and on the evolutionary timescale this represents a slow absorbtion of information about an environment.

Like all the other "problems" you raise, BOAZ_David, this isn't one, and hasn't been for a *long* time.

PS. *Please* be careful about point-of-view issues, such as:

* One man's information is another man's noise.
* One creature's evolution is another creature's downfall - the dodo, after all, evolved to become flightless because it suited the conditions of its habitat for a very long time.

Freediver, it's difficult to answer directly because you haven't named anything particularly specific that we are supposed to discuss the falsifiability *of*.

However, biology (all of which is related to evolutionary biology) makes all kinds of predictions about the natural world, and these predictions can and are validated or falsified all the time!

I can make predictions about what will happen to a population of birds after an extended drought. I can make predictions about the location, nature, and age of fossils being searched for in a particular region. And so on.

Repeatability doesn't mean you have to physically "set" the experiment. There's no shortage of experiments already running.

And if you'd like to make a *specific* assertion about some claim on the edge of research, I'm sure it would be easy to think of a falsifiable test.

The only reason it sounds absurd to "falsify" evolution, is that it is so well-established in so many different areas of research that you'd need a staggering amount of contrary evidence, across a large number of fields, in order to falsify it. The same is true of any well-established piece of science.

"you haven't named anything particularly specific that we are supposed to discuss the falsifiability *of*

That was my intention with distuinguishing natural selection from evolution. I can elaborate on this distinction if you want.

"I can make predictions about what will happen to a population of birds after an extended drought. I can make predictions about the location, nature, and age of fossils being searched for in a particular region. And so on.

The first represents a type of natural experiment and does have some value from a scientific perspective, though it is obviously much harder to work with than more controlled experiments. Your second does not relate to any kind of experiment. I suspect you worded it badly, because it seems to be a statement about how people interpret the theory. That is, it's about what natural historians would be looking for, not what they actually find.

"And if you'd like to make a *specific* assertion about some claim on the edge of research, I'm sure it would be easy to think of a falsifiable test.

Well, that depends on whether the prediction relates to natural selection or evolution. I know plenty of biologists experimenting with the former.

"The only reason it sounds absurd to "falsify" evolution, is that it is so well-established in so many different areas of research that you'd need a staggering amount of contrary evidence, across a large number of fields, in order to falsify it. The same is true of any well-established piece of science.

Wrong. Any real scientific theory can (and will be) be discredited with a single experiment - repeated by others of course. Some of these are amazingly simple, like the classic case of the circular disk producing a bright spot in the center of it's shadow. The fact that you would have to go about collecting evidence, or looking at evidence already collected, hints at a different research method, more familiar to historians than scientists.

Dawkins just caries on with changed dogmas

“"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
“"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives

I'm not too sure what you are asking for here Boaz, because there are a few different concepts being floated around. So I guess I'll start with your first questions:
-Dawkins is not "clutching at straws" as it's obvious he's not answering the original question. It's not certain whether this is because of himself or the editing.
He's also trying to answer a question with a complex answer with a simple answer easy to understand by laypersons, like any scientific communicator. I've seen and heard (on JJJ) Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki dodge a few questions myself by talking about something related but not the actual answer.
-He doesn't "propose a model", so I'm not sure what is being asked here.
-He does understand the processes, but as far as I am aware he is not a molecular biologist and may be not deeply familiar with some molecular processes, which is hardly surprising in such a huge field.
-The question was not about "spontaneous evolution and chance". This is what is referred to as abiogenesis, not evolution, and is not required for evolution to be valid. It's a common misunderstanding often deliberately employed.

I'm not sure what you are asking for in your second post there Boazy. You want more information on how gene/genome duplication works? Some evidence for it? Bright/dark side?

Just to be very clear here: are we talking about evolution and mechanisms for increase in information in a genome, or abiogenesis? We'll end up talking at cross purposes if you can't define the question properly.

As for freedivers comment on the theory of evolution being "unscientific", I've had this argument before. It all hinges on his/her/its definition of science. I think that all it shows is that the definition used in the argument is inadequate (or at least too limited) to explain exactly what science is.

runners copypasta needs no further comment.

Dawkins train of thought is a little out of date, don't you think. The definition of devolution is extinction, and given the fact that if one's gene pool falls belows its reproductive rate, its good by.

In the past, I have found the man to be very interesting and if it wasn't for that fall down the stairs, we just might have the answers to a lot of thing's. ( yes I know he lived past that) but robbed of the mind to mouth and this is the flow we all take for granted.