Evolution of complexity/information

quote:

---

Many start with the DNA .... unfortunately it is not the
DNA that makes the organism so this is inapproriate. It is
the collection of proteins made from the DNA that makes
the organisms so information and complexity have to be considered
at least at this level.

---

Peter,In some sense, you are correct, but try making even half the proteins used in your body (let alone at the proper time or place) WITHOUT the aid of DNA. DNA has, thus far, been very useful for that. There is also, if I'm not too terribly mistaken, information (data) contained in the DNA that is used to affect things other than direct protein manufacturing (i.e., it is not just a template). For instance, there are sequences that mean "start" or "stop" or that determine WHICH protein to make at a particular time or under a particular circumstance. Even these decisions and commands might be carried out in the template-fashion (tho, I don't know that they are), but considerably more is done with the template than being a pattern by which proteins are produced.Unfortunately, my knowledge of DNA is horribly limited, but that DNA is information seems barely debateable to me, as it is ordered (sequential). Were it un-ordered, then it would not be information, but, in that case, we also would not exist.

I appreciate your points.All I was trying to get at (rather than dismissing
the importance of DNA) is that in relation to 'informational'
effects in Evolution DNA is not the place to look (it is
at too a low a level in the 'system').It would be like looking at electron flow to understand
a computer program's behaviour .... inapproriate yet
essential.As one moves through the hierarchy of systems within any system
we loose sight of some essential features which are emergent
properties and only visible at a particular level ( and higher)
in a hierarchy. Once we delve lower in the hierarchy the
feature is no longer visible.To understand information and complexity in relation to evolution
I beleive the lowest level of the system hierarchy to look
at has to be the protein interactions within the cell.Added by edit:-To elaborate a little ... if a base gets changed in a
DNA sequence what happens to the organism?Sometimes nothing at all, because the base sequences are synonomous,
sometimes catastrophy because we destroy essential-protein
production capability, sometimes .... well all manner of
effects that are only explicable by looking at what the DNA
produces.This message has been edited by Peter, 11-29-2004 08:59 AM

Peter, Well, I may have missed something of your intended point, too, as I certainly am guilty of not reading all 200+ posts . On the contrary, DNA is the main source (if not, the only source) of information in an organism, with the exception of food taken in (i.e., other organisms with their own information). I disagree. It would be like looking at software code or operating system code. Consider what happens at conception, after an egg and sperm converge. There is a tremendous process that begins to create the new organism; this process has no other source for direction except the instructions in the DNA. Remove the DNA. Would the new organism form at all, much less properly? Remove the DNA and you have removed the master instructions (information). There is still information in the system ~ i.e., proteins and such (thanks to the DNA before it was removed. But this information will no longer have any directing information.On the other hand, if you remove the necessary operating environment (the cell) from around the DNA, the DNA can do nothing. Take the motherboard out of your computer. That's sort of like removing an important non-DNA cell component. Or leave the motherboard in but delete the windows operating system (like removing the DNA). Either way, the computer suddenly becomes useless. A "can't see the forest for the trees" syndrome, eh? I suppose you are right, but the visible features (in an organism, especially) are due to those nearly invisible things "lower in the hierarchy." Are you considering the protein interactions to be above or below the DNA level? I guess you consider them to be above as DNA is responsible for the formation of the proteins. But if there is information in the proteins, then there is information in that which produced the protein (decidedly more, actually, as there are instructions besides the mere template-copying to make the proteins ~ such as "start" and "stop" sequences).I'm not sure which way I see the hierarchy thing, or even that it is totally hierarchial. The DNA is both blueprint and master builder. So, is the final house (a product of the blueprint) higher or lower than the blueprint and master builder? This demonstrates that some parts of the DNA code are more critical than others. The very same could be said of software code. There are 0s and 1s in segments of the code in Microsoft's Word program that would have very little noticeable effect if removed. However, I imagine that if 0s or 1s in a certain crucial segment of that code are removed or switched, the software will not even open, much less operate. The word "SEQUENCE" is vitally important. Ultimately, computer code gets translated into machine language, which uses only two elements (0s, and 1s) ~ or, at least, it is my understanding that they are. If a string of 0s and 1s are random, there is no information, and the computer will be confused and do nothing useful. However, if the 0s and 1s are arranged in a certain order (i.e., sequenced), the computer will be able to do all sorts of useful things, such as word processing.Sequenced computer code (software) sells for a price and is designed by software engineers. Unsequenced computer code, were it about, would not command a very great price.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-29-2004 10:04 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-29-2004 10:07 AM

It is important to distinguish between communicators of information and sources of information. Speaking generally, the proteins constructed from the DNA code are only communicating information. DNA is the source of that information.Of course, it isn't really that simple. If life were designed by human engineers, then all design information would reside in DNA. Information in the DNA would flow outward through the RNA/ribosome mechanisms to govern the growth and structure of the organism through the production of proteins and other biological chemicals. The information contained in non-DNA chemicals would always have DNA as its ultimate source.But life was not designed by human engineers, it evolved by making do with what was available as circumstances arose. Life does not follow the strict hierarchical flow of information that a human engineer would prefer. DNA has been called the blueprint of life, but while DNA is very significant in this regard, we're slowly discovering other sources of information. The RNA, Mitochondria, proteins, ribosomes and so forth resulting from the union of sperm and egg (if I may consider just sexual reproduction in this brief post) may eventually all prove to play a role in defining an organism.In such a complex environment, untangling the ultimate source of any particular piece of information is problematic, because the whole system intertwines, interacts and feeds back on itself. Teasing out the legitimate non-DNA sources of information will not be easy.--Percy

Well, admittedly, this is from another thread...I hope it fits in here.Contracyle,In response to my assertion that the existence of matter in general and DNA in particular are evidence of a Creator...You say... Computer code requires "intervention" in three significant ways:

the production of an environment in which the code is meaningful

the creation of the code itself

the arranging of the code to produce desired results

​

The fact that computer codes, once carefully arranged and placed in the proper environment (i.e., software loaded into a computer with an operating system in place), can operate without intervention (and, really, even this is not true, as some intervention is required to energize and maintain the computer) has nothing to do with the ORIGINATION of the code or the ORIGINATION of the operating environment. To me, this seems rather obvious, as it is well established that humans created the codes, created the operating environments, and created the code arrangements (code arrangements, btw, are commonly known as "software").

​

I cannot imagine that computer code arranged accidentally (were that actually possible) could produce any useful results.

​

DNA works regardless of intervention.

​

Sure, now that the operating environment (earth in the solar system), the operating systems (cells), and code arrangements (various DNA sequences for various lifeforms) are in place. There are various machines that can run almost without supervision once built. Leave your car on idle, for instance.

​

There is no need to postulate a creator for the origin of the code, because the code would execute just as well whether deliberately designed or accidentally assembled.

​

A matter of debate, of course. I have trouble imagining how the not-so-well understood genetic code and the related cell machinery came about without a creator.

​

For purposes of argumentation, and with the knowledge now available to me, I shall say that, within the strict limits of what can be scientifically known, the origin of DNA shall ever elude science. However, we certainly have no examples of "accidentally assembled" codes ~ computer or otherwise that do anything useful. (Currently, I am not aware of ANY accidentally assembled computer codes, useful or not.)

​

Regardless, the genetic code of even the simplest creatures is far too complex to have been arranged (sequenced) "accidentally." Could the code behind Windows XP have been arranged accidentally? And, yet the genetic code of an ameoba leaves Microsoft's XP code in the dust.

​

...the code would execute just as well whether deliberately designed or accidentally assembled. This is support for evolution, not creation.

​

Actually, by saying, "the code would execute just as well whether deliberately designed or accidentally assembled," you have implied that the genetic code could be appropriately used to support EITHER idea, not one instead of the other. But I'm sure you did not intend to do this, and I certainly consider the genetic code itself to logically support creationism over accidentalism.

It seems to me that there is a big difference between computer code and genetic code. There is a huge level of abstractness with computer code, which makes it highly independent of the operating environment. The computer code in no way dictates or creates the operating environment. Computer code does not create motherboards or anything else that would be constituted hardware. Computers do not get created simply from computer code. DNA on the other hand is very much less abstract. The code itself is entirely physical, and more than that the entire organism is created from this code. The organism isn't an environment for the code to run it, it is the result of "running" the code.Also, since the processes involved in DNA is nothing more than a chemical reaction it is much more dynamic than computer code, and a lot less arbitrary. You can take a series of 0's and 1's but they have absolutely no meaning unless you define what they mean. With DNA, the sequencing produces chemicals, and the chemicals will have set properties and do set things. Changing the DNA code will physically alter the "computer hardware" it runs on, but changing a computer code has no affect on the physical makeup of the computer hardware.

Genetic programming applies the biological principles of mutation and selection to design engineering. It's found application in a number of fields, including automative engineering, electrical engineering and computer engineering. Work on evolving computer programs goes back at least 20 years, and you can access some of them on the web.I agree with your rebuttal of Contracycle's point that computer programs support a natural origin of life. In light of genetic programming, computer programs are usually more effectively offered in support of evolution rather than abiogenesis.--Percy

quote:

---

For purposes of argumentation, and with the knowledge now available to me, I shall say that, within the strict limits of what can be scientifically known, the origin of DNA shall ever elude science. However, we certainly have no examples of "accidentally assembled" codes ~ computer or otherwise that do anything useful. (Currently, I am not aware of ANY accidentally assembled computer codes, useful or not.)

---

Firstly, computer code and DNA are quite different. Computer code is unable to directly act on on a natural environment while DNA, being a chemical, is able to directly interact with nature. Computer code should only be used as an analogous system to DNA, not a direct comparison.Secondly, we do have random sequences of RNA that are useful. RNA nucleotides are allowed to randomly bind to one another, forming a random sequence. If RNA/DNA are like computer code, then we shouldn't see anything useful as a result. However, we do see chemical reactions occuring, some of which could eventually lead to a replicating reaction such as production of new RNA nucleotides and the manipulation of other RNA strands. For a primer on the RNA World, check out RNA world - Wikipedia . There is also an active thread here at EvC on the RNA World Hypothesis (EvC Forum: Early RNA Life).I would say that computer code is not a good comparison, since random computer code (according to you) is unable to function while random RNA code is able to function.

Question for you sir.Crystals form as extremely complex and beautiful items driven by no more than molecular attractions.Many compounds can be quite complex, particularly naturally occuring hydrocarbons driven by nothing more than their atomic structure.Is there any reason to think DNA is any different than the quartz crytal, snowflake or hydrocarbon molecule?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

DNA on the other hand is very much less abstract. The code itself is entirely physical, and more than that the entire organism is created from this code. The organism isn't an environment for the code to run it, it is the result of "running" the code.

---

It is also the case that the majority of human brain development (the development of neural connections specifically) is not coded by DNA directly.It seems that our DNA sets up several evolution-like stages of brain development in which it tells the body to make lots and lots of neural connections but it is the environment that determines which ones survive. The rest die off.DNA and the environment work hand in hand to create our brains, and there seems to be no supernatural intervention.

happy_atheist wrote:

quote:

---

It seems to me that there is a big difference between computer code and genetic code. There is a huge level of abstractness with computer code, which makes it highly independent of the operating environment. The computer code in no way dictates or creates the operating environment.

---

I'm afraid that is not as true as it appears at first glance. Take for example variable definition; the code has to carry out discrete actions to establish the appropriate circumstances for other actions. If a programme is invoked in an empty memory register there is literally nothing there to work with - everything HAS to be created by the code there and then.

quote:

---

Computer code does not create motherboards or anything else that would be constituted hardware. Computers do not get created simply from computer code.

---

False I'm afraid - we already have code that evolves subsequent code.

quote:

---

Scientific American, Programming with Primordial Ooze; October 1996; by Gibbs; 2 page(s)

​

Computer programmers ascended the economic food chain by inventing clever algorithms to make manufacturing and service laborers redundant. But some programmers may one day find themselves automated out of a job. In university labs, scientists are teaching computers how to write their own programs. Borrowing from the principles of natural selection, the researchers have built artificial ecosystems that, for a few problems at least, can evolve solutions better than any yet devised by humans. Someday such systems may even be able to design new kinds of computers.

---

I couldn't find the most recent article on these evolving structures; this one specifically dates back to '96, so maybe the one I'm thinking of was in another journal.

quote:

---

The code itself is entirely physical,

---

All computer code is physical, comprised of electromagnetic energy in particular states.[qupte] Also, since the processes involved in DNA is nothing more than a chemical reaction it is much more dynamic than computer code and a lot less arbitrary[/quote]Why do you see an inherent difference between a purely chemical reaction and a purely electromagnetic one? Why should chemicals be "more dynamic" and "less arbitrary" than electrons?We should not confuise the primitive sophistication of our technology with fundamental constraints. Evolution had billions of years to figure this out - we have had less than 80 of serious computing.

quote:

---

Firstly, computer code and DNA are quite different. Computer code is unable to directly act on on a natural environment while DNA, being a chemical, is able to directly interact with nature.

---

False - code pushes electrons; are they not part of the natural world?

quote:

---

Secondly, we do have random sequences of RNA that are useful. RNA nucleotides are allowed to randomly bind to one another, forming a random sequence. If RNA/DNA are like computer code, then we shouldn't see anything useful as a result. However, we do see chemical reactions occuring, some of which could eventually lead to a replicating reaction such as production of new RNA nucleotides and the manipulation of other RNA strands.

---

Data corruption can produce functional bugs by in a similar way. Agin I think you are falsely comparing levels of sophistication and then construing these as fundamental. There is no particualr reason to claim that random code cannot work.

I admit that I was talking more from opinion than fact, and I should have made myself a bit more clear. I meant to point out that the working of computers are fundamentally different to the working of the human body (maybe I went to deep to point out the difference). Sorry, "operating environment" was a very bad choice of phrase. I meant the hardware that the code runs on. I was trying to get at the difference between computers and human bodies. The computer code never creates the physical components of the computer it's running on, and the hardware it runs on generally doesn't spontaneously produce code in it's memory the way DNA can through procreation coupled with M&NS. Yes, I know of evolutionary computing. I didn't mean code can't alter itself. I meant that the hardware remains the same, a constraint that doesn't apply to the body. You can't alter computer code and have the effect of rewiring the components inside the actual computer. Computers aren't inherantly self-replicating, wheras living things are. Definately, I didn't mean to imply that computer code was in any way more sophisticated. In fact I got pretty muddled in trying to get my point accross in the post above. I shouldn't have been talking about differences between computer code and DNA, but rather the human body as a whole and computers as a whole. Computers have no way of writing themselves (by computer I mean the physical hardware). The physical parts of computers don't have intrinisic properties that would naturally lead to them creating computer code.When I said that the DNA code was more dynamic, what I should have said was that the physical structure of DNA is more dynamic than the physical structure of the computer. I guess I talked myself into creating a fundamental difference between the computer code and the DNA code, when what I really meant was that there is a fundamental difference between the human body and computers. Sorry for the confusion :S hehe.I normally don't post on things that i'm not very sure about, but I guess this is a good learning experience

I think the key word here is "functional". What is the difference between functional computer code and non-functional computer code? That is something that we have to define ourselves. With living things self-replication is an objective "function", but with computers and computer programs the function is directly related to our intentions. Obviously, because we have "inentions" for computer code, that doesn't mean all code has to have a being with intentions creating it.This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-30-2004 09:40 AMThis message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-30-2004 09:41 AM

In fact, random code does work. One of the early genetic programs had in its library of permitted "mutations" random modifications to the bits of machine instructions. "Offspring" programs that core dumped were failures and were removed from the gene pool.Late last year I gathered a lot of information on the history of genetic programming, and I uncovered all kinds of very interesting investigations and research. I unfortunately never bothered to write this information up anywhere, but it wasn't hard to find on the web.--Percy