Evolution of complexity/information

Hangdawg,I have some slow HPLC runs today, so I may flood you with info. Sorry if it feels like an avalanche, but maybe you could start a separate thread if you want to discuss something in more detail. Or discuss it here, it doesn't matter. However, I don't expect you to reply to everything I post in detail. That would be asking quite a bit from someone not as experienced in the biological sciences. I just hope to give you the impression that science doesn't stop with "I guess all we have is our imagination." Instead, science strives to provide detail and understanding. Anyway, on we go.

quote:

---

I get your point. But as I said in the other post, I don't get the mechanics of how certain things did evolve, and I don't think I ever can unless I see evidence of how it evolved.

---

In my opinion, the development of the mammalian middle ear is one of the best examples of evolution in the fossil record. The theory is that mammals evolved from reptiles. One of the main differences between reptiles and mammals is the structure of their jaw and middle ear.Reptile: three bones in the jaw, one bone in the middle ear (stapes) Mammal: One jaw bone, three middle ear bones (stapes, incus, malleus) Now, for this to happen through evolution we need two jaw bones to become two middle ear bones. This is EXACTLY what we see in the fossil record. And all of this happens while preserving both the function of the jaw and the middle ear. The reptilian ear relied on soundwaves being passed through the jaw bone. It is more primitive and doesn't have the same dynamic range as the mammalian middle ear. By freeing the bones from the jaw and moving them to the middle ear, mammals are able to hear better and across a larger range than reptiles, giving them a selective advantage. Also, each step shown above gives the organism this same advanatage, only in small increments as would be expected from a system relying on gradual change and selective pressures.For this system, we don't need our imaginations. It is right in front of us. So why shouldn't we expect to see the same thing happening in other organisms over time? Evolution of complexity is SEEN in the fossil record.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-19-2004 12:57 PM

Hangdawg,Last one, I promise.

quote:

---

Also, we would have to look at nature and determine whether or not natural selection is capable of removing the far more abundant detrimental or non-essential changes, which I have not seen clear evidence of either.

---

A perfect example of this is sickle cell anemia in humans. The sickle cell gene can be considered both detrimental and beneficial, depending on the environment. One copy of the sickle cell gene confers resistance to malaria. However, if you have two copies of the gene then you develop sickle cell anemia which will shorten your lifespan. However, even with two copies you are still resistant to malaria. Guess what we see in nature? In areas with endemic malaria we see a high concentration of the sickle cell gene where the benefice of the gene outweighs the negative side of the gene (fewer people die of sickle cell anemia than die from malaria). In areas without malaria we see very few people with the sickle cell gene. So, in one environment the gene is being selected for while in another environment the gene is being selected against. This is strong evidence that natural selection is able to both keep beneficial mutations and rid the gene pool of detrimental mutations.As a side note, there is a new gene that offers resistance to malaria but does not have any side effects. This gene is expected to replace the sickle cell gene in about 50 generations in an area with endemic malaria:

Hangdawg - thanks for the open discussion. Perhaps you are correct when it comes to witnessing the evolution of a novel structure with interoperable features (this is very close, though, to the near impossible idea of having a mutation-by-mutation record of the entire tree of life).However, it seems you have no problem with individual features arising from genetic changes, so we already have the possibility of an individual set of parts to work from in building a interworking complex of features. So in a way it gets back to the old statement that for those that deny macroevolution, 1+1=2, and 1+1+1+1+1+1=2 also - though in your arguments we'd have to add the caveat that 1+1+1+1+1+1 arises in an interworking manner.From your statements your position seems to be: Light sensitive cells could have evolved, a lens could have evolved, but the evolution of a lens focusing light on the light sensitive cells is difficult to accept. (Please correct me if I'm wrong - I don't want to put words in your mouth.) Nosy already covered this, and I'd just reiterate that at the genetic sequence level we do often have this kind of sequence. An inability to fossilize soft-tissue may have something to with not having evidence of these at a structural level.However, there is another important point regarding the A to B transition - sometimes there are NO intermediates:- Recently a study found that a myosin point mutation unique to humans could have caused the homo skull to switch from quasiconcave to convex in a single generation - giving us room for our great big brains. Because it was such an acute transformation, no intermediate forms are expected.- Similarly, humans have a unique mutation in a gene called FOX2P that may have granted them language ability. (A few rare families exist carrying mutations in FOX2P to give an "ape-like" sequence - those with the mutation have nearly non-existent language abilities, both spoken and written.)- A recent paper using the stickleback fish and mice showed that rearrangement of promoters can result in appearance/disappearance of limb structures in a single generation.- Also, think about the hyper-muscled boy (carrying a myosin mutation) that was recently born - he likely has some pretty drastic secondary changes in his skeletal and cardiopulmonary systems that his parents do not have.- Imagine a mutation that causes overexpression of a basic growth hormone - an organism could literally double in size from one generation to the next (this experiment has been done artificially in transgenic mice).All of these examples serve to show that a single mutation can result in quite massive and complex changes from one generation to the next with no transition observed or expected. If you'd like references to the primary literature I'll try to dig them up... There is a field of study some call "regressive evolution," where organisms lose structures in the absence of selective pressure. The best example I can think of is the cavefish - cavefish have lost both their eyes and their pigment, since there was no selective pressure to keep them (this would fall under the "removal of non-essential changes"). Everytime we see an animal with a congenital defect rendering it incapable or unlikely to breed, we have evidence of removal of detrimental changes.In fact, many miscarriages in humans serve as examples of removal of detrimental changes (especially those actually tested to show the underlying genetic defect). Similarly, children born with childhood cancer syndromes are also examples.It is much, much easier to witness the culling of detrimental mutations than the establishment of a beneficial one in a population.

Bump for Hangdawg. Let me know if you require more info.

No! It's the quote of NosyNed. He takes all the individual organisms to calculate an average complexity and states that it didn't increase. It's a strawmen, 'average complexity' is an useless quantity. Let's say it like this: "In any case, depending on how you define it, earth is still, on average, not much more complex than it was 3 mld years ago. Almost all non-living, complex structures are simpler than bacteria. Almost all the mass of complex structures is in very simple complex (non-living) forms. And by "almost all" I mean darn near ALL."You see, the 'average complexity' depends heavily on the denominator: all vertibrates? all living things? all existing complex forms? all material forms?I think we all know this. And try to find an absolute measure for complexity. But didn't succeed.

I don't often quote mine, but this thread absolutely begs for it.A few quotes from Albert Einstein: People seem to sense that there is some innate virtue, some GOOD, in complexity. There is not. A more complex critter is not better than, or more evolved or even more able to survive than one that is less complex.There is no indication that a man is more complex than a dinosaur, or that a cat is more complex than a tree.Who cares?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hello everyone,My interest in biological systems is from the point of view of studying them to find mechanisms that can be applied to information technology (I think the term BIOMIMETICS is the technical word used to describe this).I've joined the forum today, hoping to find people interested in neuroscience issues. In particular I'm interested in brain imaging experiments, especially if they relate to finding evidence of chaotic networks and attractor basins.Over the past four years, I've been playing around with agent systems based upon stigmergy (the name given to the phenomenon whereby communication is via an environment - i.e., ant pheromone trails). This led me into the fields of dynamic systems, complexity and chaos.About a year ago, I suddenly woke up to the fact that neuroscience is fast forwarding because of the discoveries being made with brain imaging techniques. The work of Walter Freeman seems to suggest that many of the neural processing networks in the brain are based upon chaotic networks and attractor basins. This piqued my interest and I've been trying to learn as much about it as I can.I've brought this subject up in a couple of system control forums I belong to, but I'm afraid that the general opinion there is that this is some kind of exotic nonsense that doesn't have much credibility. Is this the view here in this forum?I wrote a paper to try to explain how this might be applied to knowledge management, but, so far, it's gone down like a lead balloon.Cross culture communicationIs there anyone in this forum who empathizes with this approach?

---

Peter SmallAuthor of: Lingo
Sorcery, Magical A-Life
Avatars, The
Entrepreneurial Web,
The Ultimate Game of
Strategy and Web
Presence
http://www.stigmergicsystems.com

Hi Hangdawg13, I've been in your position before. See the thread Evolution and complexity for example.I got pretty convinced by this article (Human specific loss of olfactory genes), regarding human evolution. On the second page you'll see a table with mutations in olfactory receptor genes for human, chimp, gorilla, orang and rhesus. You'll see that a mutation is 'preserved' according evolution theory. When there is a mutation before human and chimp seperated, it's in both their genomes. If you encounter the same mutation in gorilla and human than it's in chimp too! Anyway the chance that the same mutation will occur in the same way parallel in different species is IMHO nearly zero.Edit: Changed linkThis message has been edited by Saviourmachine, 07-20-2004 06:13 PM

This is totally off topic - but good god are people still hawking the nonsense of knowledge management?I thought that snakeoil was on it's last legs!

Sorry about it being off topic.I've reposted under new topic proposalsBTW Knowledge Management is a multi billion dollar a year industry. They may be surprised to hear that the subject is nonsense.

---

Peter SmallAuthor of: Lingo
Sorcery, Magical A-Life
Avatars, The
Entrepreneurial Web,
The Ultimate Game of
Strategy and Web
Presence
http://www.stigmergicsystems.com

So what? People spend millions on Snake-oil solutions for all sort of medical problems - does not mean that they work.I have examined 100s of "knowledge management" systems, every single one had been an information management system. The idea of managing the knowledge of individuals is just daft.Even the founding father of knowledge management thinks the idea of managing knowledge is nonsense!(you know the term comes from a mistranslation ?) I don't believe knowledge can be managed. Knowledge Management is a poor term, but we are stuck with it, I suppose. "Knowledge Focus" or "Knowledge Creation" (Nonaka) are better terms, because they describe a mindset, which sees knowledge as activity not an object. A is a human vision, not a technological one.1We can discuss this further if your topic gets approved.1 - Sveiby, Karl Erik (2001a) What is knowledge management? Brisbane: Sveiby Knowledge Associates. Available at: sveiby - Error [Site visited 11th August 2003]

Men isn't evolved from dinosaur, nor a cat from a tree. There are no evolution processes involved between different branches of the evolutionary tree. The topic is: "Evolution of complexity/information".

yet after nearly 200 posts, we still have no idea of what either Complexity or Information are.We have no way to know if complexity is greater today than it was during the Cambrian era, or Cretaceous.Without both good definitions that we all agree upon, and some agreed method to measure and quantify, where the hell is this going?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are playing semantic games with me Charles. In fact I'm perfectly in agreement with you that every single "Knowledge management" system seems to be an "Information Management" system. But, I use knowledge management in the sense that you define it You should read articles before you make judgements about what people say in them It is this distinction that took me away from conventional ideas about knowledge/information management to look at how information and knowledge is handled by the human brain. It then becomes apparent that knowledge is something quite different to information and is a unique experience for every different person.This leads into trying to understand how people perceive and absorb information, which in turns leads to theories of complexity and chaos because it is by such means that people process information in the brain in order to turn it into personal knowledge. A quote from my paper reads This conclusion seems to be much the same as you came to in reading 100 papers on knowledge management - only I haven't stopped there. I've pursued the question of how the brain deals with information intelligently.Perhaps you should read my paper before commenting further. You'll find it is actually a criticism of current beliefs in knowledge management (which is why I mentioned that it went down like a lead balloon).Cross culture communication

---

Peter SmallAuthor of: Lingo
Sorcery, Magical A-Life
Avatars, The
Entrepreneurial Web,
The Ultimate Game of
Strategy and Web
Presence
http://www.stigmergicsystems.com

petersmall Well astrology is nonsense and it too is a multi-billion dollar a year industry.So is homeopathy. no one ever became poor underestimating the gullibility of the public.