|
Author
|
Topic: Bracht: Investigating general biology
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 03. June 2003 23:48
I noticed that the moderator removed both my postings in which I linked to the pdf of Bracht's article without any comments why. I presume and may be wrong, that the link to the article was inappropriate.
I'd like to thank John for reviewing Kaufmann's book and providing us with some insightful comments about Kaufmann's work. I would like to focus on one particular aspect of Bracht's comments namely the generation of information.
quote:
This points to a startling fact: the universe's search has been guided. There is no way it can have exhausted all possibilities (indeed, the possibilities are not even finitely prestatable) so we should seek out the reason how and why life has been constrained to the successful regions of sequence space that it currently utilizes. But if the universe's search has been constrained in some way, some possibilities were ruled out. In other words, information was somehow added to the system. And the information
constrained the search to useful regions of sequence space, so it was specified. The implication is stark: somehow, some way, specified complexity has been used to guide the production of more specified complexity. Information begets information
An interesting observation which seems to allow for inclusion of natural search direction. I would like to explore how to separate the actions of natural selection and other natural 'directions' from actions of an intelligent designer.
quote:
In other words, highly functional molecules only arise from a correctly constrained search of
sequence space -a search that is facilitated in some way by the insertion of pre-existing information.
Information from the environment for instance? The transfer of information in open information systems such as genome/environment may play the required role for transfering the information (CSI) into
the genome.
Indeed as Bracht continues to observe:
quote:
The act of choosing the functional molecules from the nonfunctional ones is itself an act of information generation by ruling out possibilities.
That's exactly that natural selection is all about "an act of information generation by ruling out possibilities" just like an intelligent designer may use the same approach to rule out possibilities.
But there are of course differences in that an intelligent designer is less constrained is his solutions. On the other hand natural selection has the benefit of long time and unexpected 'finds'.
Thus
quote:
The lesson is clear: functionality only arises from randomness with guidance. That guidance is itself an input of information.
Does not seem to help us resolve if the CSI guidance may be a regularity/chance concept or an ID concept.
Finally a remark I would like to explore in more detail
quote:
It specified complexity that evades our concepts of order, organization, energy, and information (in a Shannon-Weaver sense); specified complexity involves these concepts but is not reducible to them. It is its own entity.
Yet Dembski's approach to CSI is mostly Shannon information although Dembski limits the probability function to be uniformly distributed
combined with an after the fact specification. But a specification seems to be quite trivial for most cases and thus may not help us resolve these issues.
Thus when Bracht concludes that
quote:
Selection, as a law-like process, cannot generate information either.
we sort of agree, selection whether natural or artificial (intelligently designed) does not really generate information but rather transfers information. In one case from the environment to the genome in the other case from the environment to the genome. Thus my claim is that the processes of ID are not much different from
processes in open information systems such as the genome/environment boundary.
I also believe that describing natural selection as 'law like' is somewhat inappropriate since the argument is that law like processes will invariably find the same solution but NS, as shown in the recent Lenski paper, combined with mutation does not always find the same solution. Thus there remains a contingency after all.
Bracht seems to be basing his claims on the work by Dembski. In the period since the publication of NFL many people have contributed their observations to this work it may be useful to incorporate this new knowledge in the argument. I will attempt in the future postings in this thread to explore how to incorporate new insights into the arguments proposed by Bracht/Dembski.
In the end the issue of where does information come from may be resolved by the same old question, how can entropy be decreased in a
system. Realizing that closed systems and open systems are quite different.
IP: Logged
|
|
John Bracht
Member
Member # 5
|
posted 05. June 2003 21:02
Pim,
I'm glad you enjoyed the paper. For those who aren't aware, the paper Pim is referring to was a critique of Kauffman's book "Investigations" which I wrote and submitted to the journal "Complexity" (which is publishedby Kauffman's Santa Fe Institute). To my surprise and delight, the journal accepted the article for publication. The reason the links were deleted, I suspect, is because they're not freely accessible to non-subscribers and hence probably didn't work for the general public.
Now, on to a few comments. Pim keeps on asking whether the information found in biosystem might originate in the environment, and be extracted by the Darwinian process. While that's possible (and certainly would be the mainstream view), keep in mind that my reveiw, and Kauffman's book that it was replying to, both deal primarily with origin-of-life issues. Since the origin of life was the origin of the first replicator, there couldn't have been any sort of mutation/selection process before this first replicator. So the information had to somehow be inherent in the initial, diverse chemical pool which gave rise to this replicator.
Secondly, even if it were discovered that all the information inherent to life is, in fact, present in the environment in some form, that doesn't solve the problem of the origin of biological information--it just displaces it. Pim sees the essential question as one of direct intelligent design, but I feel that's the wrong question to focus on. The question we ought to focus on is this: what is the origin of this odd stuff, "information" that radically affects our world and makes complex things like autonomous agents? The question of whether the information was present in the environment or inserted directly into life forms is less important than the question of ultimate origin of that information.
Third, I would like to address Pim's argument that natural selection is an information-generating system. I'm a bit confused about his argument, since on the one hand he accepts that it does generate information (ruling out possibilities) but on the other hand he seems to agree with my argument that law-like processes (like selection) cannot, in principle, generate new information. However, let me just say this: the Darwinian program is one of "finding the information" of biotic complexity embedded in the world. This is what Darwinian stories (often quite speculative) do: they tell how the information in the environment translated for a gradual selective advantage for a given trait. It is often contended by intelligent design theorists that the information for biotic systems is in fact NOT present in the environment, eg in IC systems where the environment can't distinguish various intermediate forms (because they're nonfunctional and hence blind to the selective process). Other examples of where Darwinian processes lack information for biological structures include many of the major transitions in life like the origin of multicellularity and the origin of body plans, origin of sexuality, etc. These are dealt with briefly in my TRIZ paper, but the basic argument is that these adaptations require so many integrated changes to occur together that the Darwinian process cannot see far enough ahead to "plan" for them. For example, it makes no sense to have the genetic architecture for generating an arm or a leg, if you're a bacteria. However, if you're a bacteria destined to have a complex body plan like an arm or leg, you will need that genetic architecture immediately, once the new body plan comes into place! The Darwinian process can't "see" to the need for genetic instructions for arms and legs while the bacteria exists--hence, it doesn't have the information for this major transition.
Another problem is the one mentioned in the Szostak and Bartel RNA ligase example. Recall that it required 4 rounds of selection before any ligation activity above background was detected. Now, imagine that our imaginary life form requires a ligase activity. Well, the first 3 rounds of selection it doesn't have that activity and is dead! Obviously, it cannot evolve the ligase activity, simply because it requires a function that is too far in the future, and it cannot survive long enough to evolve the function. So there is an informational gap here, too.
One final comment. Pim talks about open systems and reducing entropy. This is a key point I make towards the end of my paper: entropy reduction isn't an automatic consequence of energy addition! Indeed, the reduction in entropy in biological systems requires the pre-existing low-entropy (informational) channels, catalysts and enzymes, to productively utilize the energy to reduce entropy. Thus, Pim misses the fact that it's not energy per se, but energy + specified complexity, which can operate together to bring about greater order in the world.
As a great example of this, think about an explosion versus the controlled burning of fuel in my body. The same overall reaction occurs, but with drastically different results: chaos (dramatically increased entropy!) versus greater order (perhaps a future offspring). The difference is in the channelling of the energy towards useful and productive ends. You don't get order for free, it requires pre-existing information (which is itself a form of order).
Finally, Pim takes a couple of potshots at Dembski's concept of specification, basically dismissing it with a handwave as trivial. I suggest it is not, and that Pim take a careful look back at NFL and how specifications are defined. Suffice it to say, specifications allow us to incorporate biological functionality into Shannon's conception of information in a very useful way. Critics who deny this really haven't taken the time to understand the concept of a specification. If Pim wants to argue this, perhaps we can find a new thread to do it in. Also, Pim wants to dismiss the NFL arguments of Dembski because various authors have argued it's inapplicable. I recommend Pim look at the exchange between Dembski and Wein on this, in which Dembski trounced Wein, who ceased responding on the topic. It's not that I haven't looked at what the critics have said on the topic, but I've found most (but not all) of their comments entirely uninsightful and off their mark, simply because they haven't done the conceptual work to understand Dembski's ideas before making criticisms. Again, we could discuss this further, but this probably isn't the forum for that.
John
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 07. June 2003 12:17
JB: The reason the links were deleted, I suspect, is because they're not freely accessible to non-subscribers and hence probably didn't work for the general public.
I found them initially through Google and did not realize that the paper had been released to member of ISCID only. I apologize.
JB: Now, on to a few comments. Pim keeps on asking whether the information found in biosystem might originate in the environment, and be extracted by the Darwinian process. While that's possible (and certainly would be the mainstream view), keep in mind that my reveiw, and Kauffman's book that it was replying to, both deal primarily with origin-of-life issues.
I realize that your argument went beyond merely the origin of biological information but I believe that our agreement that information may possibly be transfered from the environment into the genome (as many experiments do suggest) seems to counter the concept of Dembski's 4th law of thermodynamics about CSI.
JB: Since the origin of life was the origin of the first replicator, there couldn't have been any sort of mutation/selection process before this first replicator. So the information had to somehow be inherent in the initial, diverse chemical pool which gave rise to this replicator.
Origins of information are interesting but it seems that we now have moved the issue all the way back to the initial conditions and hence the relevance of information to biological systems seems far less related to ID.
Indeed JB comments:
JB: Secondly, even if it were discovered that all the information inherent to life is, in fact, present in the environment in some form, that doesn't solve the problem of the origin of biological information--it just displaces it.
Indeed, just like an intelligent designer merely displaces the problem as well. Either way ID or biological transfer of information may not seem to resolve the origin of information in this universe as JB suggests.
JB: Third, I would like to address Pim's argument that natural selection is an information-generating system. I'm a bit confused about his argument, since on the one hand he accepts that it does generate information (ruling out possibilities) but on the other hand he seems to agree with my argument that law-like processes (like selection) cannot, in principle, generate new information.
But Dembski's argument is that lawlike processes will generate with a probability of 1, a particular system. In case of EQU the probability of evolving EQU was 23 out of 50. Hence it seems that information can be created since like ID, evolutionary mechanisms ARE contingent. Thus selection and mutation together are not law-like but they are not chance either. Just like ID I would argue.
JB: However, let me just say this: the Darwinian program is one of "finding the information" of biotic complexity embedded in the world. This is what Darwinian stories (often quite speculative) do: they tell how the information in the environment translated for a gradual selective advantage for a given trait. It is often contended by intelligent design theorists that the information for biotic systems is in fact NOT present in the environment, eg in IC systems where the environment can't distinguish various intermediate forms (because they're nonfunctional and hence blind to the selective process).
That presumes incorrectly that ICness is defined by "intermediate systems are nonfunctional", which it of course isn't, until perhaps the recent Lenski paper which showed how evolution seems to be able to generate IC systems.
JB: Other examples of where Darwinian processes lack information for biological structures include many of the major transitions in life like the origin of multicellularity and the origin of body plans, origin of sexuality, etc.
Begging the question. You may assert of course that Darwinian processes lack the information for such magor transitions but that hardly means that this is supportable. In fact may I point out a plausible scenario for multi-cellularity?
Chlorella Vulgaris, in presence of a predator became multi-cellular. The combined structure was too large for the predator to digest. In the end the 'new' vulgaris consisted of 8 cells. Of course all the cells had the same function so now the question is: Can specialization evolve?
Some requirements would include that certain genes are turned on/off in certain cells, leading to the need for some form of gene regulation. But gene regulation is already part of the cell. Is the step from identical cells to cooperative cells an impossible step for evolution?
The Volvox may be a good model.
Certainly a colony of specialized cells is not necessarily that hard to appreciate from an evolutionary persective thus the suggestion that the major transition to multicellularity is somehow a problem for evolution may be overstating the issues.
JB: These are dealt with briefly in my TRIZ paper, but the basic argument is that these adaptations require so many integrated changes to occur together that the Darwinian process cannot see far enough ahead to "plan" for them.
True but the question is not if evolution can plan for them but if evolution can explain them.
More later.
Cooperation and conØict in the evolution
of multicellularity
A good article in Heredity
quote:
Multicellular organisms probably originated as groups of cells formed in several ways, including cell proliferation rom a group of founder cells and aggregation. Cooperation among cells benefits the group, but may be costly (altruistic) or beneficial (synergistic) to individual cooperating cells. In his paper, we study conflict mediation, the process by which genetic modifiers evolve that enhance cooperation by altering the parameters of development or rulesof formaion of cell groups. We are particularly interested in the conditions under which these modifiers lead to a new higher-level unit of selection with increased cooperation among group members and heritable variation in fitness at the group level. By sculpting the fitness variation and opportunity for selection at the two levels, conflict modifiers create new functions at the organism level. An organism is more than a group of cooperating cells related by common descent; organisms require adaptations that regulate conflict within. Otherwise their continued evolution is frustrated by the creation of within-organism variation and conflict between levels of selection. The evolution of conflict modifiers is a necessary prerequisite to the emergence of ndividuality and the continued well being of the organism. Conflict leads -- through the evolution of adaptations that reduce it -- to greater individuality and harmony for the organism.
See also This excellent article by Glenn Morton
quote:
"One of evolution's most important experiments was the creation of multicellular organisms. There appear to be several paths by which single
cells evolved multicellular arrangements; we will discuss only two of them.
The first path involves the orderly division of the reproductive cell and the subsequent differentiation of its progeny into different cell types. This path to multicellularity can be seen in a remarkable series of multicellular organisms collectively referred to as the family Volvocaceae, or the 'Volvocaceans.'
[ 07. June 2003, 12:32: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 07. June 2003 15:39
John: Finally, Pim takes a couple of potshots at Dembski's concept of specification, basically dismissing it with a handwave as trivial. I suggest it is not, and that Pim take a careful look back at NFL and how specifications are defined.
My argument is, and I have read NFL, that specifications are trivially easy. Look for instance at the flagellum, "an outboard engine"... Fine we now have a specification and now what? How can we determine that this specification has any objective value?
John: Suffice it to say, specifications allow us to incorporate biological functionality into Shannon's conception of information in a very useful way.
I disagree, it's merely a label and a very subjective one to put on something we observe. And I have read about the concept of specification so don't give me the ad hominem that critics do not take the time to understand the arguments. This is not the forum for such 'arguments'.
As far as specification is concerned, what does specification add? Is it merely a painting of the bulls-eye around the target? Certainly in biology these specifications are all after the fact. In fact specifications before the fact in biology seem quite impossible in many instances since evolution does not look 'forward' but rather uses and reuses what is available in novel and inventive ways.
For more in depth discussion and critique of Specification see Sobel
quote:
From this second illustration can be gathered that Dembski's theory enables a moderately imaginative person, with a list of possible delimitations of an event, easily eliminate relevant chance-hypotheses for the event; if they all make more probable that not its non-occurrence, and avoiding "false negatives" concerning relevant chance-hypotheses for this event is somewhat (it need not be very) important to him. From the two illustrations, one may gather that by the lights of Dembski's book, we are entitled, and will always be entitled to conclude, that not much happens by chance.
John: Critics who deny this really haven't taken the time to understand the concept of a specification. If Pim wants to argue this, perhaps we can find a new thread to do it in. Also, Pim wants to dismiss the NFL arguments of Dembski because various authors have argued it's inapplicable. I recommend Pim look at the exchange between Dembski and Wein on this, in which Dembski trounced Wein, who ceased responding on the topic.
Don't you love the revisionism :-) First of all, read the exchanges that Erik provided and make up your own mind. In my mind Dembski obfuscated and did not answer many of the very relevant objections raised by Wein. That Wein left Dembski the last word is quite understandable given the last response by Dembski. Did 'Dembski' trounce Wein? Irrelevant at most, doubtful at best.
John: It's not that I haven't looked at what the critics have said on the topic, but I've found most (but not all) of their comments entirely uninsightful and off their mark, simply because they haven't done the conceptual work to understand Dembski's ideas before making criticisms.
THe vagueness of concepts such as CSI, specification and IC are not that helpful and when Wein asks for clarification he gets obfuscation.
Howard van Till captures my feelings quite well
quote:
However, when it comes time for Dembski to support his conviction that the bacterial flagellum is specified, the procedure becomes considerably more casual, almost facile. Speaking on the specification of biological systems in general, Dembski simply asserts that, “Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the sense required by the complexity-specification criterion.”In these four brief sentences the foundation of Dembski’s entire strategy for certifying the specification of biotic systems is laid.
or as W[urk=http://www.talkreason.org/articles/inference.cfm]esley Elsberry argues[/url]
quote:
However, Dembski's triad of criteria for recognition of intelligent agents is also satisfied quite adequately by natural selection. "Actualization" occurs as heritable variation arises. "Exclusion" results as some heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. "Specification" occurs as environmental conditions specify which variations are preferred. By my reading, biologists can embrace a conclusion of design for an event of biological origin and still attribute that event to the agency of natural selection.
Mark Perakh looks in detail at specification
quote:
From that example is evident that by detachability Dembski's actually means a subjective "recognizability" of the pattern in question. In order to decide that the pattern discerned in a low probability event is detachable, and hence serves as specification, i.e. points to design, we must be able to recognize that pattern as matching some already familiar image. For that to happen, we must have a certain background knowledge.
[ 07. June 2003, 17:16: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John Bracht
Member
Member # 5
|
posted 08. June 2003 03:44
Pim,
This thread is splintering in so many directions, and quite frankly, I've spent way more time discussing these various issues of specifications, CSI, ID in general on internet discussion forums and email discussion groups, than I should have. I have many better things to do with my time than to re-hash all these issues about which you and I will undoubtedly have irreconcilable differences.
Furthermore, I originally thought that you wanted to actually discuss my Kauffman paper. It now seems that this was not your intent, and you merely wanted to use it to springboard into your own views of how the Darwinian mechanism operates as a form of information generation. I found your use of quotes slightly misleading with regards to my original intent with the Kauffman paper, and I've attempted to give a brief summary above as to the misleading spin you put on my words. I feel like I've made my positions clearer and I'm content to let the discussion lie.
Another reason I won't get into a general discussion of you about Dembski's work is your blatant mis-understanding of it. You say you've read it, then you say
quote:
I realize that your argument went beyond merely the origin of biological information but I believe that our agreement that information may possibly be transfered from the environment into the genome (as many experiments do suggest) seems to counter the concept of Dembski's 4th law of thermodynamics about CSI.
You clearly do not understand what Dembski's 4th law of thermodynamics is all about. I won't do your homework for you, but I highly recommend that you go back and re-read the relevant sections of NFL. Here's a hint: the 4th law has nothing to do with the flow of information from environment into biotic systems and everything to do with how the act of generating and utilizing information might counteract the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, Dembski freely acknowledges that natural mechanisms are excellent conduits for transmitting CSI, but never for generating it. Since Dembski acknowledges and argues for the non-intelligent flow of information, I'm truly mysfied about your assertion above.
The obvious misunderstandings on your part from the above simply further my resolve that you haven't done the work of truly understanding the ideas you're attempting to critique. So, I'll not be participating in this thread further, unless something really interesting comes up and I can't help myself.
Feel free to take this thread wherever you want, of course. I don't know if you had any intentions of actually discussing my Kauffman paper further. I think it might be fun to start a whole new thread dedicated to the idea of information flowing from environment into biology. Heck, I might even start one up, when/if I get some time.
John
[ 08. June 2003, 03:46: Message edited by: John Bracht ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 08. June 2003 13:06
Dear John,
Your response exemplifies exactly what is needed to make discussions about CSI, IC, specification more fruitful, namely clear definitions and application of such definitions to establish if they are useful, workable. As van Till points out Dembski spends tens of pages defining what specifications should be all about and then applies them to biological systems in an almost ad hoc manner.
You claim that I am misunderstanding Dembski's work but that seems to be a common 'problem' among many of its critics then. An alternative interpretation might be that these critics do not misunderstand the work but in fact have found serious flaws.
You state that I do not understand Dembski's 4th law of thermodynamics. Fine, if you believe such then you may dismiss any criticism with such handwaving and rest assured that ID will never gain ground in making a scientific case. A good example is the 4th law of thermodynamics, or better known as the 2nd law of thermodynamics for closed system.
Since the system is closed you are right, it has nothing to do with the flow of information but that is one of the major shortcomings of this 'law'. It claims that in a closed system information can only decrease. Of course that applies equally well to ID being unable to increase information in such a system. Since my argument is that the method of creation/transmission of CSI is not different for ID and non-ID and thus if the argument is that CSI cannot be created by non-ID that the same applies to ID. Since CSI seems to be created through contingency I'd argue that ID and non-ID are not much different if non-ID processes include a mixture of chance and regularity for instance.
Of course the law does not counteract the 2nd law of thermodynamics for the same reason the Maxwellian demon does not but as for instance Adami et al have argued, the process of selection works as a 'Maxwellian demon', injecting information in the genome through acception and rejection. Of course all this comes at a price of course since the 2nd law is not really counteracted and thus countless organisms have to die for the genome to evolve.
IF infomation can freely from from the environment or IF information can be generated through processes of selection/mutation THEN I would argue that the NFL has failed to make its case for a reliable detector of intelligent design. For the sake of this argument I am not addressing the claims of reliability themselves which opens up a whole new can of worms nor will I address the (non)-applicability of NFL theorem to evolution. I am merely looking at Dembski's "4th law" of thermodynamics and arguing that it is nothing more than a limited form of the 2nd law of thermodynamics for closed systems and uniform probabilities.
May I also point out that Bracht suggests himself a natural information generation when he states that:
quote:
The act of choosing the functional molecules from the nonfunctional ones is itself an act of information generation by ruling out possibilities.
Let me argue for a parallelism: THe act of choosing the functional genomes form the nonfunctional ones is itself an act of information generation by ruling out possibilities.
quote:
The lesson is clear: functionality only arises from randomness with guidance. That guidance is itself an input of information
Again this 'guidance' may be the selection component in RMNS. Again suggesting that such guidance may be a source of information.
And although Bracht tries to argue against selection
quote:
Selection, as a law-like process, cannot generate information either.
Selection is not truely a law-like process as the examples by Lenski for instance have shown. Even selection is contingent.
IP: Logged
|
|
gordon
Member
Member # 781
|
posted 08. July 2003 11:28
John,
You mention that you find the claim that natural selection can add information to be unfounded: quote:
Third, I would like to address Pim's argument that natural selection is an information-generating system. I'm a bit confused about his argument, since on the one hand he accepts that it does generate information (ruling out possibilities) but on the other hand he seems to agree with my argument that law-like processes (like selection) cannot, in principle, generate new information. However, let me just say this: the Darwinian program is one of "finding the information" of biotic complexity embedded in the world. This is what Darwinian stories (often quite speculative) do: they tell how the information in the environment translated for a gradual selective advantage for a given trait. It is often contended by intelligent design theorists that the information for biotic systems is in fact NOT present in the environment, eg in IC systems where the environment can't distinguish various intermediate forms (because they're nonfunctional and hence blind to the selective process). Other examples of where Darwinian processes lack information for biological structures include many of the major transitions in life like the origin of multicellularity and the origin of body plans, origin of sexuality, etc. These are dealt with briefly in my TRIZ paper, but the basic argument is that these adaptations require so many integrated changes to occur together that the Darwinian process cannot see far enough ahead to "plan" for them. For example, it makes no sense to have the genetic architecture for generating an arm or a leg, if you're a bacteria. However, if you're a bacteria destined to have a complex body plan like an arm or leg, you will need that genetic architecture immediately, once the new body plan comes into place! The Darwinian process can't "see" to the need for genetic instructions for arms and legs while the bacteria exists--hence, it doesn't have the information for this major transition.
I would like to make a few short comments.
While perusing a couple of other discussion fora, I came across a citation of interest on this topic.
"Natural selection as the process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolution." M. Kimura. 1961.
I did a web search for this and found that it was published in Genetical Research 2, p.127-140 originally, and is now available in a book of Kimura's collected works.
I have not read the paper, but it appears that Kimura, a respected geneticist and 'founder' of the neutral theory of molecular evolution, demonstrated what you find impossible.
You then mention large-scale changes, that, according to you, would require "so many integrated changes to occur together" that, in essence, you find it hard to accept.
I have not read your paper in question (is there a link or citation?), so I don't know if you offered any references of justification for this.
So I ask - What "integrated changes" did you have in mind? Why do you belive that there must have been some sort of coordination?
There are several papers in the literature describing large-scale phentypic changes resulting from relatively simple genetic alterations, including point mutations and gene duplications, that I find the implication that there must have been some sort of 'requirement' of multiple integrated 'plan'-like changes ot be unfounded.
Any comments?
IP: Logged
|
|
gordon
Member
Member # 781
|
posted 08. July 2003 11:33
quote:
JB:
The lesson is clear: functionality only arises from randomness with guidance. That guidance is itself an input of information
This seems to be: 1) circular and 2) the use of multiple defintions of a term, in this case, "information."
I agree with Pim that this sort of ad hoc usage and application is confusing in the least.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic