Evolution of complexity/information

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

I think you're probably right. I certainly don't think that Contra and myself are of differing opinions of the bigger subject (ie that there isn't something special about DNA that means it can't be natural).I myself was thinking of DNA as being analogous to the storage device in the computer (i'll assume it's a magnetic strip). The order of bases in the DNA would then be analougous to the electronic state of the magnetic strip. This would tie in with computer code being the state or movement of electrons inside the computer, in the same way that the DNA code is the particular arrangement of the bases.I did actually consider the possibility that the physical computer was intended to be the physical laws, or maybe the universe so as to include the laws and the environment. I stopped short of stating that though.

Yes I think Percy has nailed the difference in perception.I fully agree that the relationship between the code and platform in computing is not the same as the relationship bewteen DNA and the body it 'designs'.But it is highly likely that we will, quite soon, with the developement of eveolving code, use it to develop both the theoretical parameters of future platforms, and possibly the specifications of the machines that will produce those platforms. This will be like a computer designing a womb which will give birth to another computer.And looking at it from that perspective the sheer awsomeness of biology becomes apparent.

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.

Hey Peter,
You said;But consider this:In the 90s I was working for
Animal Science | CALS
On the Cause of cellblock in invitro fertilization reimplants of cows
& it was KNOWN that the metaphase plate looked different for rats,than cows than humans. In order probe the cell cycle it was necessary to have some components/elements STABLE across the reproductive connection and I proposed that CENTRIOLES might be markers to standardize various chemical treatments on AS MICROTUBULES maintain as proteins their own dynamics independent of the kind. In other words it might IN FACT be true that proteins in the information necessary to kinetically reassociate centrioles generation after generation, while not necessarily carried by the DNA as information carrier, would with respect to differences in the kinds, possibly maintain this information in the place of metaphase plate differences which this lab was purporting as the possible reason that cells block at different stages in different animals.In this sense, if true, the proteins WOULD BUILD some factor relevant to the DIFFERENCE IN SHAPES of the metaphase plates which might or might not have been causal with cellblock(failure to divide) timeings ,no matter the state of the cell-cycle. I never got to finish this work because of personal reasons but I had other labs prepared to start developing computer simulations, necessary to carry on the work from 1991-2. And since the metaphase plates were indicative of large brush mammal taxonomy, then--therefore, I see no reason to PRESUME that "proteins DONT build organisms". If they build the ability to associate with MATERNAL chemicals then they build sans sex, the individual development within a law of growth(if).This shows up the issue of information necessary to make a form and the form's self-assembly. The independent dynamic activity of mictrobules could concievably maintain a structure invariance FROM WHICH chemicals react, but insofar, as, a particular taxon provided THE ENVIRONMENT, to maintain the kinematics of the CLASS of PROTEINS (alpha vs beta etc), it would still be THE SPECIES that has proteins building iTS body rather than some Turing's chemical rxns diffusion equation set up for only for a given sex biased case in the exception.I am going to be sticking with Gladyshev's

quote:

---

"The energy-consuming chemical substances formed as a result of the effect of solar energy (or other external energy sources) are, in the final analysis, transfomed, by the operation of the second law of thermodyanmics into thermodynamically stable (in the conditions of the Earth) compounds, CO2, N2, H2O, and others. Living systems, as it were, obstruct the achievement of chemical equilibrium by forming higher hierarchical structures, e.g., supramolecular structures, cells and organisms, as a result of the spontaneous process of thermodynamic self-organization (self-assembly). This slackens up the establishment of chemical equilibrium at all hierarchical levels and can be explained in terms of the phenomenon of structural stablization and the principle of stability of matter."

---

IN PROGRESS IN REACTION KINETICS, "Thermodyanmic Self-Organization As A Mechanism of Hierarchical Strucutre Formation of Biological Matter" Vol 28 pp157-188,2003 @
http:20 – ’‘
with respect to his

quote:

---

However, up to now the theory of biological evolution did not attempt to point out the physical essence of the evolutionary trend, although Ch.Darwin admitted that the principles of life are a part or a consequence of some general law determining the evolution of matter as a whole.

---

generalized (see
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/text/mf/index.htm
)This implies for instance that lichens on the north and south sides of tree trunks IN THIS SLACKNESS (as to the trend op. cit.) would be predicted to show higher melting points for
http://www.unizh.ch/.../Cyto_Website/dudlerLab/pdf/ssfgb.pdf
than on the north side.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You/One is-are free, to try to interpret the word "slackening trend" some other way; but unless it was KN::WN that oncosis and apoptosis WERE inherent here, I can hear of no other way I know! The point is that it might be due to thermodyanmic "demand" rather than a heritibility in a lineage constuitively. Did you ever get the idea that Turing proposed his wholly chemical view of form BECAUSE rather than as a result of him being a homosexual? The relation is that the higher hierarchy ALSO is in continuum with reproduction whether or not this is recognizable as a transfinite domain. This is not possible possibly if only the sex involved is focused on on. I do not know specifically what this demands linguistically but itis irrespective of language, spoken by US.There is an exciting possiblity opening up intellectually that WHAT Croizat OBSERVED in organic distributions (claimed by New Zelanders' TO HAVE BEEN minimal spanning trees WERE the RESULT of minimzations obeying Gladyshev's law.
Universidade Federal do Paraná
It is quite plausible to attempt a correlation between the increase in the degree of vertex in biogegraphic plots of collections localities
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~gasmerom/MAT131/mst.html
ON EARTH and the INTERVALS' LENGTH of strong inequalities from the DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS OF MACROTHERMODYNAMICS.
http://www.endeav.org/evolut/age/dem/dem.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------
The crucial point to comprehend is where Georgi said (in the first cite of GPG's here), "Thus, it was established that in ontogenesis (or phylogenesis), the specific Gibbs function of the formation of supramolecular structures of an organism's tissues (SYMBOL), tends to a minimum:
INTEGRAL EQUATED TO SAID Mediating SYMBOL OMITTED (2)
Where"..."Let us note that Eqn(2) implies taking account of all supramolecular interactions in all hierarchical bio-tissue structures (intracellular, intercellular and others). This is fully justified because the structural hierarchy does not always coincide with the temporal hierarchy."Page166.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-02-2004 10:46 AM

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.

It may be only that but we would need a better thermo DYNAM ics in applied biophysics. I was trying to keep seperate notions of protein motion and 3-D structure from possible infolded thermodynamic demand as mentioned by Gladyshev. So, while some Cornell researchers in the 80s when trying to figure out how the ribosome functions determined it was not how strong a bond was but rather if the bond was the first to form that mattered these issues might be DIFFERENTIALLY "recorded" over historical time AMONG DNA, RNA, and PROTEIN such that no matter what the protein interaction might be the information might be unfoldable ONLY from the the relation of DNA to RNA say such that what at first mattered in the first instance but as to the protein minimizing something latter it might have been the strength that determines what chemicals efficiently interact and thus would have been selectable if not selected for previously but only randomnly becoming a part of a lineage. I think it is necessary to keep the notion of possible interference with the genetic appartus clear for a time until people really understand it before it might be asserted to be just another understanding in genetics itself.The relation of the metaphase plate shape to taxogeny indeed is spurious at best but that is what I was being paid$ to think about at Cornell. It was however quite striking to see taxonomic differences at the level of the baramin by looking INSIDE a cell rather than seeing the differences in a MUSEUM. The reductionist protocols of the animal scientists were not prepared to make the relationships I hinted at which were day to day being done down Tower Road in the dept of ecology, evolution, and systematics. I only tried to give a slightly broader understanding to the research. The consequence of the above post however does continue in my direction as the minimizations might be related to the Banach-Tarski paradox, minimal spanning trees, Gladyshev laws,and baramin GENETIC discontinuity. More on that in its proper thread later. All the Best, Brad.

You are wrong in a very essential part of the analogy.Computer code is not a self replicating molecule. Therefore, computer code not a good analogy for DNA.While computer code needs to have someone review it, and impliment it, DNA imperfectly replicates itself, and through a natural filter (No external intelligence) of natural selection will either eliminate patterns, or have those particular patterns replicate itself further.So it is not 'code' in the sense that you are thinking it's code.

Ramoss, The first assertion is quite correct. Computer code is not a self-replicating molecule. But, I ask, is DNA a self-replicating molecule? Or does it require highly specialized structures found only in the cell to carry out its replication?Now, as far as the validity of my analogy is concerned, one must remember that an analogy is a comparison that shows similiarities between two different things. There is simply a limit to how far any analogy can go by definition. If the analogy is a perfect match, then two different things are not being compared; rather, the very same thing is being compared to itself and that serves no purpose.However, it is fine to critically examine an analogy as you have done because many analogies ARE fallacious. I may have been unclear in some way previously; so, I am happy for an opportunity to clarify my analogy. Based on the concepts that I was comparing, I think you'll find the analogy quite satisfactory. Here are the two major concepts I was attempting to draw comparison between computer code and genetic code:

• Both DNA and computer code require highly specialized environments in order to be meaningful and useable. If I swallow a Windows XP CD, it will have effects but none that Microsoft intended because the code is not useable in my digestive system (a fine code in the wrong environment). Likewise, if I place a DNA strand into a cup of distilled water, it will not carry out any of its normal functions (a fine code in the wrong environment). Put these codes in their proper environments (Windows XP CD in the CD-Rom of your computer; DNA in the appropriate cell) and the cool stuff can happen.
  ​
• Both DNA and computer code have sequenced components, and it is the sequence that makes the major difference in results. Different genetic code sequences make different organisms. Different computer code sequences make different "softwares."

I happen to believe that the tremendous and precise sequencing involved in the various genomes (the various and unique genetic codes for the variousis and unique organisms found throughout Earth) indicative of a creative intelligence, and this is the crux of the analogy. Computer codes have a tremendous amount of sequencing...genetic codes have all the more sequencing and produce results (living organisms) that far outweigh any result of a computer code (a spreadsheet, for instance).I quite agree. Computer code is hardly sufficient (in terms of wonderfulness), but I have little else in my experience to compare genetic code to for these particular aspects.As a puzzle, I ask this:
Since the genetic code contains the information to make the cell, and since the cell cannot form without the genetic code, how did they come to be as a system that works in such a coordinated fashion?(The fact that there is mitochondrial RNA (or DNA?) only makes the question that much more difficult as it is yet another very complicated piece of machinery that is coordinated extremely well during cell division).Another question:
If DNA is nothing more than templates for protein shapes (which is tremendous in and of itself), what would a fertilized egg do if all the DNA were extracted upon the completion of the fertilization event?Finally: Well, here you are simply assuming that natural selection is a fact. There are also self-checks built into the DNA replication action that are tremendous. At the organism level, errors in DNA replication are usually corrected via the immune system (i.e., the malformed cell is destroyed). Considering the number of copies made every moment, the DNA/cell system is doing a fabulous job.Edited to add:
You also appear to simply be assuming that the genetic code was not devised and implemented. I contend that it was devised and implemented and that once implemented has been able, thus far, to carry out the replication of life forms on this planet. I really don't see how it could have gotten started otherwise. I see the existence of the genetic code as one piece of evidence that life was initially created as opposed to having come about through purely physical processes and chance.Consider the coelacanth. It's a fish that is a "living fossil." It was thought to have come into existence 400 million years ago and thought to have gone extinct about 65 million years ago. Then in 1938 a live one was caught. Now there's some stable DNA if I ever saw any . You can read more about the Coelacanth here (to my knowledge this is not a Creationists' site):
http://www.dinofish.comI, of course, believe in a young Earth, but I think this is a fascinating puzzle for people who believe the Coelacanth has existed for 400 million years...how can DNA be THAT stable if its changing so much?Edited to add:
I tend to be a bit long-winded...sorry . Also, I find this subject most interesting and appreciate everybody's responses to my queries/assertions and such. (Even though, usually I disagree quite a bit .)This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-04-2004 03:45 PMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-04-2004 04:31 PM

That topic has been discussed elsewhwere.You understanding of the situation is very wrong. Message 125You'll have to read up and down from that post to get it all.Or you may start a new topic.ABE
Also I thought maybe you would drop into the dates and dating forum if you think the earth is young. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 12-04-2004 04:06 PM

Hi Brad,Whew! Gotta read that a few times to get even a bit of it down, but I certainly enjoy the interesting information that would come from such experience.Not sure exactly what you are saying in regards to whether the complexity of info in living organisms supports evolution or creation, though. In case it isn't clear, I think it supports creation.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-04-2004 04:15 PM

Hi AdminNosy,Thanks for the link to the Coelacanth discussion. I shall have to peruse that (sometime rather soon, hopefully). I have bookmarked it for future reading.I think I am dabbling a bit in the Dating Forum. Though, it might be another forum and I just THOUGHT it was the Dating Forum (with me, such confusion is VERY possible ~ something about Silt and Dating and depressions in the ocean floor by major rivers and such, I believe.At any rate, the Dates and Dating forum, if I haven't been there yet, will be of great interest to me. So, thanks for the invitation.

To me an important reason for examining the dating issues is the enormous descrpancy between a few thousand years and a few billion.I've said before, if I thought the Earth was only 6,000 years old I'd find the idea of evolution accounting for the life forms we see and the fossil not very acceptable either. It seems it is very fundamental.

NosyNed,I couldn't agree more. Very well said.

Contracycle,An interesting post. I agree and disagree...Neat how computer code can physically affect the environment (RAM, I presume, I'm computer literate in a limited way). Thanks for pointing that out.Also, thanks for pointing out that computer code has a physical element. Although, I think it is abstract as far as the programmers are concerned, which may have been happy_atheist's point. However, I disagree with happy_atheist (certainly nothing personal happy ~ books could be written on what I don't understand about computers ) on this point: I think computer code is not independent of the computer. It can certainly be formulated outside the computer, but it can work ONLY in the computer. But, I may have misunderstood happy on this point.IMO, this stuff about self-replicating computers sounds a bit daydreamish. I'll stop short of saying it won't happen or that it's impossible...I don't consider it impossible, just unlikely. (But that is just an opinion).Now this quoted source of yours... ...just seems to support ID all the more, to me. Just a thought there.