Evolution and complexity

Firstly, I do not understand the aim of your further explanation. You're emphasizing the difference of complexity between the 2CS and the systems of 'more advanced organisms' on a particular level. The result on the higher level (of the proteins) remains more a less the same: it added only one protein (and maybe 'more advanced organisms' developed a 'saver' way to encode for this one).Secondly, I don't see why a 2CS would evolve naturaly without nature selecting for complexity of this specific type (and compression of the genetic code in this case). Does the difference between 'functional' and 'vital' proteins matter in regard to complexity? Where does the 2CS come from? Do cell processes always try to read a string in two directions?PS: The link you provided is without www: No webpage found at provided URL: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/C/Codons.html

I think complexity is not that subjective (is there anybody disagreeing with a dual system being more complex then a oneway system?), but that's subjective. 1. I offered a solution to your problem: the considering of the mapping system of information from one level to the other as a particular complexity type.
You're only adding some other kind of complexity (besides the number of different proteins for example). Thanks for refining the model, but everything holds still.
2. I doubt the range of this complexity level (of different coding systems). I assume that a vast amount of beings is using the same system. So, generally there is no fluctuation of complexity on this level and not really a kind of gradual evolution envolved (with successive stages and so on).
3. I doubt current life being descendents of these things with 2CS, so if it's developed parallel the 'arrow of complexity' still points upwards.
4. I do not bother about decreasing complexity cases that will occur sometimes, but I'm afraid that this is normally the case. And until know I failed to comprehend why this isn't.I asked about the origin of the 2CS itself, you didn't answer that (I guess using the antisense strand is normally a waste of energy).

I am. You've to use my definition of information (types). [you quoted out of context] I'm not mixing different information types. Normally people do, that's why I tried to distinguish some types. Depends. For cave fishes the natural environment became less variable. Until know I didn't bother about the amount of genetic material in a population isn't it? It's not necessary. So you can redefine type 2 as:
2. the amount of genetic material in an individual
Variety is not a synonym of information. It's just a part of it.Post numbers: I defined information in post 21. In post 23 I'm just suggesting Kolmogorov-Chaitin, post 26 is your reaction. Finally I defined complexity in post 27 again.-Edit: post numbers[This message has been edited by Saviourmachine, 02-11-2004]

Can you explain me how these bacteria with a 2CS are trying to encode the antisense strand also?There is a lot of stuff about antisense regulation, and I found also an example of a protein encoded on the antisense strand of nuclear DNA in eukaryotes:
NCBI
I didn't find the answer, but I didn't have enough time. Maybe you already know..I assume we stop about the 2CS matter to not stray off from topic. Thanks for your input.

Uhm, you're right, when I said this I didn't meant Kolmogorov complexity. I thought of complexity as 'density of information', the less code is needed for the same information, the complexer it is. And in that way it's kind of proportional.
If we go back to Kolmogorov complexity, I've to re-think about the information types I defined, because I think now that you're right in proposing that they are not proportional. Anyway the information types I consider as very useful in 'information' matters, so I am not going to delete these posts. I've to think out a case where information increases and Kolmogorov complexity decreases. I think that's not that difficult. And a case where information density is increasing and Kolmogorov complexity decreases! Actually, you should... That's not true, friction does delay a train, it's not accelerating it. We can make progress without knowing numbers exactly.Anyway, if I do not prove mine point, I didn't prove that evolution can or cannot count for complexity. So, what matters? I believe it cannot, you believe it can. This discussion is just for trying to get to a point where you can deside on rational grounds. I'm trying to provide a framework for that. I compare it to building a house together. So, everybody welcome! Please think about how 'information' or 'complexity' should be defined in a way you like, maybe it's a cornerstone for getting to the solution. I had to say this...

I'm glad to hear that, because I really tried not to offend anyone, evolutionist nor creationist. Complexity as 'density of information', what do you think about that?I think Kolmogorov isn't that propriate, because a cell doesn't have many decoding techniques. Nature doesn't want to design the most efficient program, but the best adapted dataset (although the dual system of Trixie shows that there is evolution in the decoding program too, sometimes).An easy to read webpage states this: Do you know studies that handle different levels of information? Here I found an other easy to read article.

Can you explain that further? Why would adaption/specialization occur by adding complexity and not by loosing it? (I still think that loosing redundant 'functions' goes faster than gaining new) You can consider coupling between organisms as complex also. The computer organisms of Ray share 'genetic material' with hosts. I would consider that shared material as someway belonging to these organisms.I was a little bit tired of NosyNed. He's an excellent nay-sayer. But maybe he's right. And we will 'never' find a good definition of complexity or information. If you look at complexity as 'complex to understand' you've to model a neural network of the size of our brain. That will take a pretty long time. The same if you see 'information' as 'surprising'.
Personally I still think that these things are something absolute. Just like ideas as 'to do good is better than to do bad'. It's a circular reasoning, but for me 'a truth as a cow' (Dutch saying meaning 'a horse is a horse, of course'). If you predict snow in the summer I would consider it as highly informative, but if you're a charlatan I won't... Information has something to do with reality too.

1. Doesn't it mean that you think that loosing 'complexity' is as likely as gaining? Or doesn't?
2. Why do you not assume some kind of bias?

Loosing as likely as gaining...A mutation that
- adds code that prevents the forming of a tail
- destroys code that forms a tail
is likely probable?You're stating there is no bias. If I should state that the bias is negative I've to prove that, so do you.

EverybodyI found a really interesting website about certain McShea. He thinks about complexity and evolution the same as you and Flies. I will address the key points.A passive drive to complexity
"Because of that lower limit, and because no upper limit on complexity has been established yet, ... McShea says it may be just time alone, not any sort of driving force, that makes it seem there is an overall trend favoring complexity."Harold Morowitz doesn't agree
"The Chart of Intermediary Metabolism, he says, outlines the development of chemistry. "On it," Morowitz says, "we can see that chemistry is enormously interconnected." If you want to change the makeup of something, you have to add to it. "This is the reason [International Business Machines (IBM)] can't give up DOS. And because IBM is in competition, the company can't start over." "Complexity as the amount of different parts
"Basically, McShea has started to quantify two aspects of complexity. "There's complexity in the sense of the number of different parts at the same scale," he says. The question in this case is: "How many different things are inside you?" "Complexity of levels
"But now he has turned to the other sort of complexity--of levels. In particular, he is testing the hypothesis that when cells get together to form an organism, they can lose complexity. "When they get together, they should lose some internal machinery," he says. In other words, when upper levels arise, lower levels disappear."It seems like we gave a summary of his life work in this thread. SourceNosyNed: I was not speaking about addition of a tail!!! Only about regulation versus destruction of the genes encoding for a tail.Edit:
- Source added
- Sorry, Gould already mentioned about McShea but anyway I've now a name to search on...[This message has been edited by Saviourmachine, 02-20-2004]

So much you didn't say about that. Your point is clear enough, but I should like if you want to explain the 'tail' example.Immediately will raise this question: What's the speed of this passive drive of evolution towards complexity, this 'drift'?

You invented a new word, I couldn't google it. Through quoting you I'm now a little bit famous too. No, it's a side-effect. In the case of tossing coins, the maximum amount of succesive heads will increase over time. You can assign a speed to that. Do you think that this amount will always be the same? I guess no one can answer that question, because you've to guess the amount of generations in the past and the generation sizes, besides assuming a steady mutation rate and lots of other things like changing conditions as you mentioned. So, for me this part of evolution theory is highly speculative.

Observed but not actual. I think things we observe are actual enough. You say that complexity depends on our perception, so you should have said that 'there is no difference between dirt and a human.' There s a 'complexity difference', if you define complexity as depending of human perception. Warmth is a human perception and we can not define it propriately, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.Of course, you can have postmodern thoughts about everything. But, in science you're working within certain frameworks. So assume that what we're observing is reality and you can join us again on our journey.

To answer my own question, I would suggest that in the case where code is destroyed the amount of information and complexity of the organism is lowered, while in the adding code case the amount of information is preserved and the overall complexity is even increased.I would like to hear the opinion of NosyNed about your type of complexity. Probably he does agree with none of us. If you decide to define complexity as the amount of different parts then you're taking the right decision in considering it both as a decrease. But I used this example to question your definition (and didn't expect that you wouldn't alter your definition). It's allowed... I think this is a false analogy. I do not want to express all lost information throughout the years within my definition of complexity. But certainly the new blue print you made is important too, not only the opening of the door itself, or the mechanism you're using. If the mechanism is self-constructive (using the blue print), wouldn't you consider the blue print a part of it? So, I don't talk about original plans, but about current plans! If you agree with me that there are to types of adaptions, normal adaptions (driven by selection) and complexity adding adaptions (due to this passive drive towards complexity) then it's maybe possible to calculate the speed of both. Until now I saw that the observed speed of mutations is much higher than should be expected looking to the fossil record. Maybe this is an explanation for evolutionists. (I'm not always your adversary, certainly not. I definitely believe in an absolute truth we're all trying to find. )

Now everybody here agrees that nature can not select for complexity itself, you're coming up with this? I wouldn't have problems with nature directly selecting for complexity (for me it's pretty clear that a very big size, a very high speed and other extremes would make special complex adaptions necessary; I formulated that in my first 'rambling' post ). You've to convince NosyNed and FliesOnly about this. I saw for example this on the web: 1. Normally that's the answer I get, when questioning mutation rates: it's more than enough. But the more than enough isn't based on scientific evidence, I guess. It seems the other way around (see 3).2. I found already an explanation for a slightly higher molecular evolution rate. Usually the dates the molecular clock provides will precede the corresponding dates in the fossil record, because a specie have to be around for a time to become 'significantly fossilized'.3. This overview on PubMed states clearly that calculated divergence times significantly precede the first appearances of the relevant groups in the fossil record. Then the much slower 'complexion adding' mutation rate I suggest won't be welcome, I think.