Evolution of complexity/information

The problem, when it comes to down to it, is that
'information' in the genome is an analogy, rather
than a fact.The genome does not contain the information to build an organism,
it contains templates for proteins that, when formed and
operating together, produce an organism.These are two very different things.

I view information to be that which an intelligent
agent obtains from data.You are assimilating a collection of data (the letters) as
you read this, and if you have been taught to read english,
and have sufficient context you will obtain information
from it (the meaning).In 'design' you can view the blue-print as data, and what
the 'engineer' (say) does with that blue print is to
interpret it to form an implementation. Give the same blue-print
to different engineers and you cannot guarantee that the
outcome will be identicle.It requires an intelligent, interpretive act.There is no 'information' in the genome, any more than there
is the 'information' within hydrogen and oxygen atoms on
how to make water, or to bond with carbon to make alcohol, or ...Within living things there are a set of chemical reactions going
on, the emergent property of that system of chemical reactions
is the organism.The 'information' on 'how to build an organism' doesn't exist.
The organism emerges from the complex set of chemical reactions
that go on.'Information' in the genome is an unfortunate consequence of
references to the 'genetic code'.

Doesn't the concept of an increase in 'order' presuppose
a direction or intent for the change?The problem with extending the analogy of information in
the genome is that one starts to think of 'increasing'
or 'decreasing' the information content.All that is happening in evolution is that the set of chemical
reactions available is being changed. Some changes provide the
system (organism) with a benefit in its environment, some don't.Some old greek bloke once said 'things change', and that's all
that evolution is about ... change. Concepts of information
or even complexity, and defintely of 'order' obfuscate the
simplicity of what is going on.There are a vast array of chemical reactions, and the way they
interact is so complex that the human brain cannot fully
encompass them (according to another thread we can never understand
them since we are a part of the same system ).If someone claimed that there was 'information' involved in
production of water and carbon dioxide from the combustion of
wood or coal would anyone listen?

The definition of information that I use isn't one that
I have made up ... it's the result of an extensive literature
search in the field of information theory.There has been, typically, an poor usage of the word 'information'
even within the field itself, and many have argued for a pinning
down of it's meaning. The one that I use is a concensus of
various researchers including Peter Checkland from the 'soft
systems thinking' camp.'Meaning' is something different.If I write:T697AOKIt's just alpha numeric characters ... except that to anyone in
England it brings vehicle license plates to mind, and for
myself a particular nice CBR600 motor-cycle.The reader makes associations based upon their own context to glean
information from data. The same reader/observer may obtain
different information from the same data when viewed at different
times.In the main, older works do not differentiate between data and
information.Perhaps it is simply misleading to use the term 'information' if
it has different meanings in different areas of study.You say there is a well-defined term 'information' that is used,
could you please post (or link to) that definition, since that
may be the root of my objection to it's use in reference to
genomes.

If order can be arbitrarily defined how is it a helpful
concept?I think I agree with you as far as the rest of your comments
go.Basically my position is that the term 'information' when used
by anti-evolutionists is used in the more ethereal sense than in
any mathematical sense. They then apply, to an analogy, processing
which is only consistent with 'actual' information, rather than
the 'sort-of' information that genomes actually appear to contain.I wonder if a creationist would use 2LOT to claim that the
oceans don't exist

Shannon's work on data signal processing is expressed
in a manner such that 'data' and 'information' are often
but not always interchangeable.His work (important stuff) is all about how much can we
leave out and still be able to reconstruct the original
data.He calls this core 'information' or the information content
of the message.Like 'txt' is all you really need to send in order to send 'text',
most people who use computers are used to all manner of abbreviated
versions of words (mainly missing vowels) like 'ctrl'.With signals it's about sampling frequencies (needs to be at
least twice the fastest freq. in the signal).In effect Shannon information is about the amount of uncertainty
in a message.When Shannon says 'information' it largely means 'the minimum
amount of data for message reconstruction' ... but the reconsturction
is done by some intelligent agent (or an algorithm that acts
in proxy of one).The information content of the word 'text' is not embodied in
the letter string ... so I suppose 'meaning' is more what information
is about (although meaning implies that something has a
distinct objective meaning whereas information is more subjective
in nature).If you want to look at genomes again ... it's chemically complex
systems (which there may be some definitions of information
or information formalism that are approriate to) that result
in something.It's not strictly speaking a 'this sequence of DNA codes for
blue eyes' kind of relationship ... it's 'this sequence of DNA
produces proteins which then interact with other cells products
in particular development modes that lead to blue pigment in
the iris'.A ball doesn't roll down a hill because it has a code within
it that tells it how to ... there are numerous forces and factors
interacting with the hill and the ball which lead to the ball
rolling down the hill.

I see what you mean about the arbitrary selection of
a reference point .. that makes sense to me so long as,
as you say, it is a relevent one and is used consistently.The problem I have with anti-evo 'information' arguments is that
they fundamentally assume that the genomes of organism are
the same as a blue-print or design spec.That is, something which tells the cell how to grow.That is the sense in which 'information' is used most often
in this context ... a definition much closer to the one I
lean towards than to the more restricted forms used for data
signal processing.Anyone who deals with computers and believes that computers
can handle information should stop and think very hard about
what they beleive information to be.

But I view those differences to be an emergent property
of the extremely complex chemical interactions within
cells (and between cells), rather than as any 'real'
information/blue-print type construct.In a similar way that 'transportation' is an emergent property
of a collection of wheels, cogs, chains, pedals, and frame
form a bicycle, but the interaction of those components
with an environment create a 'transportation' property.

I appreciate the power of understanding the way that
'emergent properties' are generated, but my objection lies
in the application of the term 'information' to genomes because
this is more likely to obscure such explanation than to facilitate
it.

I think we do.I read recently a comment on understanding genomes ... along
the lines that given a DNA sequence one could produce the
right set of amino-acids ... but reconstructing the actual protein
from that would not be trivial due to working out the folds.I'm not a biochemist, but this is in line with my way of thinking.DNA is not a blue-print in an information sense ... it provides
a kind of catalyst for the necessary chemical reactions that lead to
living things.Evolution of dominance may be an interesting topic to discuss in
another thread (if not already there).Not sure how you would apply an Ogive curve (in Sir Francis' sense)
to genomic data though.

No problem ... unfortunately agreement is a conversation
stumper

The biggest problem one faces (beyond defining terms )
when considering information and complexity to biological
systems is to decide what we are applying them to.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.Not the proteins, but the INTERACTION of a collection of
proteins.I'm still not convinced that information and complexity are
useful concepts in biology let alone evolutionary theory.Evolution is about change.That's all. Change.It focusses on the relationship between a set of phenotypic
traits with an environment.That we appear to see an increase in complexity (if viewed as
number of interacting components of some kind) is suggestive
of an environmental need for such complexity to overcome the
shortcomings of organism.Like 'human intelligence', much valued and praised, is only
required because we are so puny as an organism.The more resilient and adaptable an organism is, the less
'intelligence' it requires to survive .... that's why there
are more bacteria and insects than mammals.More complex (however one considers it) doesn't mean better
if it did (even in terms of match to environment) there wouldn't
be any 'simple' organisms left after 3.5 billion years.

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

DNA doesn't build organisms .... it builds proteins.Proteins interact in various ways with other chemicals
in the environment in which they exist.Proteins don't build organisms ... they react chemically
with other compounds, elements and proteins.Chemical interactions in vast nested, cyclic, complex systems
result in organisms.If we wish to consider the nature of the information required to
consider how evolution may or may not lead to an increase
in complexity of the organism we need to look at the complexity
of the chemical intercations .... not at what happens in the
DNA.Whether a base change in a DNA sequence is increase/decrease
of information at that level (or niether) is of little relevence
to information 'used' or consumed by evolutionary processes.Proteins do NOT communicate DNA information, they are the
end product of that layer of the cell heirarchy and deliver that
product into a higher layer.All analgies to communication systems are very poor in this context.

Perhaps it's just a semantic difference.The protein, even in the case(s) that you mention,
aren't what 'build' the organism. It is the interaction
of an array of proteins.The information for 'organism' is then based upon the
'information' content of the interaction rather than the
proteins themselves.