|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,782 Year: 1,104/6,935 Month: 385/719 Week: 27/146 Day: 8/19 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Natural selection forced complexity to increase? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
Just a moment...
'We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural "Maxwell Demon," within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase.' I was referred to this article by some anticreationist website trying to refute W. Dembski's information challenge. However, I cannot grasp what this means. What the hell is a Maxwell Demon and why does it increases complexity?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1805 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I found this:: http://www.maxwellian.demon.co.uk/name.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3543 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote: Cool paper and cool site on Maxwells Demon. My thanks to you both. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
bump
Just a moment... Anybody feeling vindicated or threatened by Adami et al.'s paper yet? They show that selection can minimize random information to produce complexity!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 6198 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hey, Dr. T:
Here are a couple of other interesting papers: Sequence Logos, Machine/Channel Capacity, Maxwell’s Demon, and Molecular Computers Self-Organization of Template-Replicating Polymers and the Spontaneous Rise of Genetic Information Evolution of Biological Complexity Evolution of Biological Information. All of these cover either some aspect of Maxwell's Demon or the evolution of biological complexity. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5359 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Nice link;
Another place I have to get back to and re or read;; When I went into the Studio to Broadcast Locally c/e on TV I came out being confused what a sequence is that is not a series. I still do not understand this difference for the promotion for either c or e can not be even the context yet the business models seem to imply that the global ecomomy may so operate. I dunno. Maybe this time I will actually address neutral evolution directly. You are absolutely correct to wonder how this article can be used *against* creationism for I was unable in the knoweledge we biologists actually posses to get beyond the thesis/antithesis in the first senetence as a $trend$ for the &cash [value]) of any evolution thinking has this being DISCUSSED by evolutuionists as "species selection" from which kimura's etc thought probably devolves if i was to very fy this by a reading beyond that LLoyd gives in The Structure and Confrimation of Evolutionary Theory ((for any difference of upward vs downward causation)) while agree more likely multiplicatvely rather than additively with lloyd that this speices underselection could be reduced without genic selection to a trend visible across what would in geologic time be multiple horizons but I have not put out my ideas a wrote up at home last semester on how phytons may havre gotten to warm eggs by eating e-fish and using 'elelctromotive force' for heating in Maxwell's analogy of attraction and heat for any repulsion the reading o Weiner may give an ant for a brain etc chaegeuxetc etc but my version is just as narrative and I prefer to keep my personal version private untill I derive results from it deductively and thus general. The word the evolutionst is using against one here is "trend" and I think that cone or not much of what Gould thinks is not a line IS but this requries to put and be put on the line that only you or I or someone else must to before it is... etc. I got over this %dream* of (demon) by trying to read what was true in the book "The Human Use of Human Beings" by Norbert Wiener 1954 out of Houghton Mifflin with sub-title 'Cybernetics and Society [This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-16-2002] [This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1805 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I've noticed sparse creationist response to this ... any
particular reason?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
quote: Embarrassment?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
peter borger Member (Idle past 7991 days) Posts: 965 From: australia Joined: |
Dear peter,
I think this articel is rather technical. Maybe you --or somebodey else-- can give a brief summary of the research conducted in this article, what results they got and how they draw the conclusions. And what the implications are for biological systems. I think that would really help a lot, peter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1805 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
The article addresses the issue of increasing complexity
within genomes. It first defines complexity as the amount of information thatthe genome contains. Information here is used to mean functional portions of the genome. They state that this can only be an approximate measure, since we cannot be 100% certain of a lack of function for any segment. The segments that do not contain 'information' in this senseare referred to as 'entropy' (from Shannon information theory). The 'entropy' is considered 'blank tape' upon which new functioncan be recorded by random mutation + selection. Selection acts as a 'measure' by which changes in the genomeare filtered such that an increase in entropy (or corruption of information) are filtered out due to the resulting lack of fitness. Since only changes that decrease the entropy are allowed throughthe filter, complexity (in the context defined in the article) is forced to increase. As to research approach ... the authors appear to have appliedmathematical approaches from information theory to define complexity within the genome. The major assumption they appear to have made is that the'entropy' is indeed non-functional (an assupmtion that PB has also made here). That's how I read the article, and would tend to agree thatwith selection causeing a bias towards keeping 'functional' DNA that any mutations that 'broke' functional DNA would be removed (by death probably) while any that caused a non-functional section to become functional would be likely to be retained should it make the organism more fit (in the context of it's environment). Note the article makes no claim that genomic complexity isrelated to structural complexity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5359 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Franics Crick once wrote with regard to biology " A rock is much less ordered". It seems to me that on some notion of information a rock could be more ordered than a virus able to mutate and "evolve"
We seem to be confusing the statistics of the matter from the noise in the signal. Mandelbrot KNEW that something other than a normal distribution could be the nature of the noise in the telephone pattern but we have not a genetic science able to investigate the many more than the already perhpas too many chemical combinations to investigate in the time it takes ATT to change it's TV commerical. Apes can not dial down this centerd slow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1805 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: It depends largely what one means by 'ordered'. I think I would tend to agree that something like a rock, ora metal is much more ordered than any biological system in the sense that organisms are somewhat mutable. quote: That was why I brought out the assumption made in the articlethat the non-functional sections are indeed non-functional. We do not actually know this for sure. Iff they are, then the article makes a good suggestion for howgenomic complexity could be forced to increase via selection. quote: Are you sure about that? ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
Seriously, this thread is underdiscussed.
These approaches should be considered theoretical, because they use digital organisms. Are any of you aware of other papers which show the increase in complexity in vitro not in silico? Peter Borger, you replying to this? Admins, can I promote this thread as this month's Topic of The Week? ![]() [This message has been edited by Andya Primanda, 10-07-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025