Evolution of complexity/information

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

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

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

I think you and Contra may be considering the analogy differently. It all depends on how you draw the analogy. You're drawing an analog between computer hardware and the human body, while I think Contra would draw it between computer hardware and natural physical laws, or perhaps the environment.The human body is the expression of human DNA. But a computer is *not* an expression of the computer program, and this is why the way you're looking at the analogy isn't a good fit. The expression of a computer program is what the program actually does, which right now for me is producing letters in a message box in a browser window in response to keystrokes.Analogies shouldn't be carried too far, but this analogy can go a fair ways. Just as modifications to human DNA cause changes in the expression of the DNA on the human body, modifications to the computer program will cause changes in the expression of the program on my computer screen.My main point is that if you're comparing DNA to computer programs, then it is inappropriate to extend the analogy into a comparison of the human body and computers. The appropriate analog to the human body is what the computer program does.--Percy

Loudmouth and I perhaps do not agree on this, but I think a blueprint is a serviceable analogy for DNA. It depends upon the level of detail at which you're examining life's processes, but this analogy has been used plenty of times by scientists. There's even a book on my shelf titled Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution.But I think the comment you're responding to was trying to make the point that complexity of structure can be merely apparent and does not necessarily correlate with complexity of information. A good analogy is coordinate systems. In a cartesian coordinate system, x² + y² = 4 looks like it might represent a line with a fair amount of complexity. But in a polar coordinate system the same line is written r=2. It's just a circle.If I could modify your surmise slightly, I agree with you that genuine complexity of structure must spring from equivalent complexity in the original specification, with the qualifier that detecting the regularities in the structure that might point to simplicity of design is very difficult.--Percy

Is your avatar genuine Bradscrawl? --Percy