|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution and complexity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You're right! That's true. But if there is no way to decode it,
Yes, that is why "information" content of the genome (or of anything else is not a 'well-behaved' measure of complexity. So you are not, in fact, talking about anything 'proportional to information'. Whatever complexity is it isn't as you've defined it there. I will look at the post 23 and 26 information tomorrow.
and information of the higher level (type 3) doesn't exist, this complexity of type 2 will not lead to complexity of type 3 (see post 21/27 for the different types).
I'll have to ask you some more questions about your types later. I don't see why you have them all mixed together. How do I measure variablity in the natural environment? Has it increased, decreased or stayed the same over the past 50 million years? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
octipice Inactive Member |
I think that there is an essential point that has up to this point in time been missed: it isn't neccessarily the the organisms themselves that are getting more complex, but the...well lets call it the food chain for now. Ok, so let me try and answer a question...why are there far fewer "more complex" organisms than "simple" organisms. Simple answer...food chain. Predators are in general more complex than their prey. Since predators live solely off of their prey there must be a significantly larger number of the prey than of the predator. I didn't really explain this too well, but will in a later post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3554 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
The dual coding system [2CS] (italicization is mine)
Trixie writes:
It seems you've the same idea as me about the relationship between complexity and information. Thanks to the dual coding system there is more information on the protein-level, so you can call it more complex. If the second coding system shouldn't result in a protein, it's not adding that much complexity isn't it? Or does it? We've to discuss about that. have a "dual coding system" whereby a gene read in one frame codes for one protein and read in a different frame, or read backwards, codes for another protein.... On the face of it, this makes the system used by bacteria seem much more complex and sophisticated than that used by what we consider to be more advanced organisms. There are 3 things to think over:- the coding system, is it a kind of information? or does it only transfer information from one level to the other? - is it possible for a 2CS to work in 'more advanced organisms' (because apperently nature selected against it)? does it hinder the appearance of beneficial mutations (nature can not optimize properties one by one in the 2CS)? - are there realy no similar systems developed in 'more advanced organisms'? At least, you're right, that eukaryotic cells can be more sophisticated on a particular level, but that's why I defined more levels. So, it's not only the amount of base pairs, it's not only the amount of proteins, it's not only the amount of DNA-regulated abilities of a cel or an organism. But if all those are generally more complex / contain more information, then I want to call that organism more complex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3554 days) Posts: 113 From: Holland Joined: |
The complexity of the food chain. I think you're right about suggesting that there are more kinds of complexities envolved (I'm also thinking that time does effect this kind too, by the way).
It seems that you're relating this 'food chain complexity' with 'organism complexity' in the second part of your post. How?
octipice writes:
I think being predator is just as dependent of 'size' or 'speed' then of 'complexity' of the organism. In post 16 I suggested 'size niches' in stead of 'complexity niches'. NosyNed said that it was a rather rambling post... And indeed, it's difficult to sustain this with stochastical information or things like that.
Predators are in general more complex than their prey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I don't think I made this clear enough. When I said the dual coding system means that a bit of DNA can code for one protein in one direction and another in the other direction etc what I should have added is that BOTH PROTEINS ARE VITAL TO THE CELL. 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. The code tells the protein synthesis machinery which amino acid to add next to the growing amino acid chain (proteins are built from amino acids). The order of theamino acids in the chain and any modifications that then take place determine the properties of the protein. Without the code in the DNA in the first place the protein can't be made.
If you consider how the code actually works you realise how difficult it is to use a single sequence of DNA to code for more than one protein. The code is carried by four bases called A, C, G and T and the order they come in determines the amino acid sequence. However, it's not as simple as that as it takes three bases together to code for a single amino acid. For example ATG codes for methionine at the start of the protein. For the full genetic code check out this site http://www.users.rcn.com/...ranet/BiologyPages/C/Codons.html From this you can see that it's quite a complicated task to manage to work out how to code for two different proteins using a single stretch of bases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Trixi :
Question : Do you believe this post of yours evidences a basis to deduce a Creator ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
This is not a faith and belief forum. Please stay on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
No is the short answer. Trying not to stray off topic, all I wanted to show was that complexity can be a difficult thing to define and can depend on what bits of an organism you're considering, or what processes.
By the way, Ned, stilltrying to dig out the rats and warfarin stuff for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Oh, I was about to say what rats? But now I have a vague memory on that. It was weak warfarin resistent rats wasn't it.
Thanks. You obviously have a better memory than I. I might just lend you money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3554 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
By vital I mean essential to life. Without the protein the cell will die. I'm not talking about complexity as in the NUMBER of proteins produced - I'm talking about having a system which incorporates this ability to code for two essential proteins on a single sequence of DNA.
In general only a single strand of the double stranded DNA codes for proteins - the sense strand. It's complementary strand, the antisense strand isn't used (for this you have to know that A on the sense strand is T on the antisense strand, C is G, G is C and T is A). This dual coding system is able to use the antisense strand to code for proteins as well as the sense strand, but not only that, it uses a part of the antisense strand that complements a coding region on the sense strand. 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. Sorry about the error in the link, I gather you found it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Saviourmachine Member (Idle past 3554 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 3554 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Ok, I'm going to have to do a bunch of careful reading. I'm a bit busy so it may take a day or so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I know of this system in viruses and bacteria, I'm not aware of any overlapping genes in "higher" organisms including humans, yet I think you would agree that normally humans etc would be considered more complex than bacteria and viruses. For example, most potato viruses have a grand total of 8-10 genes, humans have approx 30,000 genes. Yet the DNA coding system used by the viruses and bacteria can "seem" so much more complex when compared to the system in humans who have oodles of non-coding DNA and pseudogenes. That's the only point I'm trying to make.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024