|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution and complexity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
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).
Trixie writes:
Does the difference between 'functional' and 'vital' proteins matter in regard to complexity?
BOTH PROTEINS ARE VITAL TO THE CELL. Trixie writes:
Where does the 2CS come from? Do cell processes always try to read a string in two directions? The coding system carries all the info needed for a cell to make the proteins it needs - it's a sort of architect's blueprint. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
Trixie writes:
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. I'm emphasising this on a particular level to illustrate that complexity is a subjective quantity - it depends on who's doing the looking and what they're looking at. 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
NosyNed writes:
I am. You've to use my definition of information (types). [you quoted out of context] Saviourmachine writes: So you are not, in fact, talking about anything 'proportional to information'. You're right! That's true. But if there is no way to decode it, NosyNed writes:
I'm not mixing different information types. Normally people do, that's why I tried to distinguish some types.
I don't see why you have them all mixed together. NosyNed writes:
Depends. For cave fishes the natural environment became less variable.
How do I measure variablity in the natural environment? Has it increased, decreased or stayed the same over the past 50 million years? Nosyned writes:
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: How do I distinguish between the amount of variety and genetic material in a population? Why is it necessary to add up the total number of base pairs in a population? Do I cross species lines when I do that? What is variety? Is that a synonym for information?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:
NosyNed writes:
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. Whatever complexity is it isn't as you've defined it there. I will look at the post 23 and 26 information tomorrow. -Edit: post numbers [This message has been edited by Saviourmachine, 02-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
NosyNed writes:
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. Kolmogorov complexity is, as best as I can tell, not the same as information and not proportional to information.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...
NosyNed writes:
That's not true, friction does delay a train, it's not accelerating it. We can make progress without knowing numbers exactly. This whole area is quantitative. You can't make any progress without being precise. 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
NosyNed writes:
I'm glad to hear that, because I really tried not to offend anyone, evolutionist nor creationist.
As far as I can tell any definition you have given so far is accountable for with darwiniam processes. NosyNed writes:
Complexity as 'density of information', what do you think about that? First we need a clear definition of complexity then we have to see if we can demonstrate that evolutionary processes can or cannot account for changes in it. 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:
For example, Kuppers found an elegant way to reconcile the paradox of increasing information. Life is biological information, and the origin of life is the origin of biological information. Information has different aspects: syntactic (as in information theory), semantic (function and meaning of information for an organism's survival), and pragmatic (following Von Weiszacker, "information is only that which produces information"). Since evolution depends on the semantic aspect of information, there is no contradiction with the second law of Thermodynamics, which only deals with the structural aspect of matter (i.e., the syntactic aspect of information). The origin of syntactic information relates to the prebiotic synthesis of biological macromolecules. The origin of semantic information relates to the self-organization of macromolecules.
Do you know studies that handle different levels of information?
Here I found an other easy to read article.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
Loudmouth writes:
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)
I would say that in general, there is a general trend towards complexity. I think this has to do more with specialization, with complexity being a byproduct of specialization.... However, specialization allows more effecient sequestering of resources (fancy words for better fitness) and this will usually cause what we would consider complexity. Loudmouth writes:
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. Chlamydias and Rhickettsias seem to go in the opposite trend, these are bacteria that are less complicated and require a host. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
FliesOnly writes:
1. Doesn't it mean that you think that loosing 'complexity' is as likely as gaining? Or doesn't? My feeling (as I have so eloquently explained in my prevous posts...ha...lol...sorry NosyNed) is that as many organisms evolve "towards" simplicity as evolve "towards" complexity...that there is no directional bias either way.2. Why do you not assume some kind of bias?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
Everybody
I 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.
Source NosyNed:
NosyNed writes:
I was not speaking about addition of a tail!!! Only about regulation versus destruction of the genes encoding for a tail. What mutation would cause the addition of 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
FliesOnly writes:
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. You're not really gonna make me go through this all again are you? Immediately will raise this question: What's the speed of this passive drive of evolution towards complexity, this 'drift'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
NosyNed writes:
You invented a new word, I couldn't google it. Through quoting you I'm now a little bit famous too.
I'm playing with 'complexitrons'. I think the correct term is darwins isn't it? NosyNed writes:
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? To ask this quesion implies some idea of direction at all. There isn't any. Each creature is, in some way, different. Each reproduces more or less successfully. Depending on the conditions and how they change with time there may be what looks like a direction from this or may not. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
Lizard Breath writes:
Observed but not actual. I think things we observe are actual enough.
Am I correct in saying that Complexity is a human term created to describe a quality observed in the universe, but it is not an actual entity in the universe? Lizard Breath writes:
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.
So there is no complexity difference between dirt and a human ... Lizard Breath writes:
Warmth is a human perception and we can not define it propriately, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. But if we look at the universe objectivly as a whole, then there is no difference in complexity because complexity does not 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
Saviourmachine writes:
A mutation that- adds code that prevents the forming of a tail - destroys code that forms a tail is likely probable? 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...
FliesOnly writes:
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!
I would conclude that despite a very detailed and complex set of original plans and the addition of a novel route, the final outcome would be a simple method of opening the door. Saviourmachine writes:
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. )
Immediately will raise this question: What's the speed of this passive drive of evolution towards complexity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3584 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
Loudmouth writes:
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.
Why couldn't both be driven by natural selection? Loudmouth writes:
I saw for example this on the web:
Saviourmachine writes:
Could you give an example? Until now I saw that the observed speed of mutations is much higher than should be expected looking to the fossil record. ... The least diverged ancestral repeats (ie those that were inserted into the genome just before divergence) show 0.17 substitutions per site in human and 0.34 substitutions per site in mouse. Using 75 million years for the date of divergence gives a neutral rate for humans 2.2x10-9 per year or 4 x 10-8 per generation (or about 120 substitutions per individual across the 3 billion nucleotides in the human genome. That means that each of us has on average about two mutations in an active protein coding gene compared with our parents and that there are therefore several billion mutations in active genes in the world population.
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). Contrary to creationist claims there are more than enough mutations occurring - and fixing - in the genomes to explain the observed rate of evolution and the differences between the species.... 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024