Evolution — information increase and entropy

[artis]

Speaking about entropy, isn't this article cited by @Fervent Freyja one order more complex itself than the idea of natural selection because I read it in the article that quote

in a similar approach, proposes that mechanical selection of novel information drives evolution. In the next section, it will be described the mathematical model of the dynamics of message transmission, as a proposal to explain the nature of biological evolution.

As far as I understand random mutations just occur and if beneficial they make the organism last longer or reproduce in higher numbers so the process which selects this mutation to endure longer over the others is chance essentially, by chance one got lucky so to say and now he has "better cards" to play with.

This information approach proclaims that the cells somehow screen to find "novel information" sort of like an X factor approach to potential evolutionary beneficial changes?
Have I got the menaing of the article right or not?
Ok a few questions on my own,
1) does the mutation rate on average for macro beings differs a lot from species to species or is it around in the same ballpark?
2) If we know (which I don't know while writing this) the mutation rate then can we extract the probability of a beneficial mutation to come along and express it in a formula, then compare the mathematical probabilities of evolution with the data that we have from fossil DNA samples and what we know so far , or has this already been done?
One of the reasons I'm asking is because if looking back to the very primitive first life forms , if they had to wait long for a beneficial "life changing" mutation then there would be a high risk factor of evolution dying off soon after it had started.
Pardon the speculation on my part but it would seem to me that if the mutations rates have always been the same then I find it hard to see how the early simple life forms could have had the chance to get a grip and move on in order to produce further life. But I'm interested to hear some input on this.

 

[jbriggs444]

can we extract the probability of a beneficial mutation

I rather doubt it. The majority of random tweaks to the genome will be neutral. Tweaks to junk DNA. Loss of unimportant functionality. Loss of function masked by the presence of another gene. Some significant fraction will be directly harmful. Some small fraction will be beneficial. But that benefit might take a long time (generations) to manifest.

It might even take a lucky combination of tweaks to get a benefit while each tweak separately could be detrimental.

Edit: Actually, one might be able to back into a relevant figure. Try to track the change rate for the species genome versus the mutation rate of an individual's DNA from birth to reproduction.

 

[BWV]

So if information is related to entropy - the content being proportional to the number of potential random permutations, how do humans have more 'information' than other creatures?

We have 42 chromosomes whereas the shrimp I ate for lunch has 90, so given that 90 chromosomes provides a larger permutation space than 42, do shrimps have more information?

Looking directly at DNA, the human genome has 6.4 billion base pairs, but an amoeba has over 290 billion, so again, does not the ameoba genome contain more information as the permutation space is vastly larger?

 

[anorlunda]

Some small fraction will be beneficial. But that benefit might take a long time (generations) to manifest.

True, but not the only case. A virus might select for some previously neutral trait. Then the virus goes extinct, leaving the effects of the selection without any apparent advantage remaining. The number of variations, the number of organisms and the number of years is too huge to be able to make simple logical statements connecting specific benefits to specific traits.

Isn't the tardigrade able to survive in many more environments than humans? Depending on how you rank, that could make the tardigrade more advanced in evolution than humans.

 

[BWV]

There was a major beneficial within (relatively) recent human history:

https://slate.com/technology/2012/1...lerance-why-do-humans-keep-drinking-milk.html

 

[hutchphd]

One of the reasons I'm asking is because if looking back to the very primitive first life forms , if they had to wait long for a beneficial "life changing" mutation then there would be a high risk factor of evolution dying off soon after it had started.

First it would be helpful to me if you (and everyone) would be more precise in the use of the terms "mutation" and "selection".

The very primitive first life forms did not need to worry about being eaten! They could just happily do their thing just like their parents did. When there appeared a beneficial mutation in some distant relatives it may have been existentially threatening; but they could always move to the south side of town...this is probably why speciation eventually occurred...This is my attempt to say I don't think your argument makes any sense. In fact what does "evolution dying off" even mean? Individuals live and die.

The fact that the Darwin's theory of evolution for more than a hundred years drove a revolution in paleontology is impressive enough. The flood of added confirmatory DNA information in the subsequent 50 years simply fills in the unshakeable foundation. Is every bit of supposition correct? Of course not. But to seriously endanger the fundamental theory would require some remarkable new evidence, none of which you provide nor is presently extant.

'

 

[Drakkith]

If logic was so universal I believe we wouldn't have all the problems we do have with quantum mechanics.
Can you or anyone explain with logical arguments the entanglement of particles? Not the process but the underlying reason for why it happens.

There are no problems with quantum mechanics. You just don't like it because it doesn't match up to your everyday experiences here in the macro world.

And just as an example, the reasoning that life on Earth was started by an external intellect is just as reasonable as the reasoning that by random chance something as complex as working cells and "primitive" life just fell into existence. Until we have definite proof for either one or the other there can be multiple reasonable explanations to a single event, in fact such has been the case for many phenomenon.

Nonsense. We have overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and absolutely none supporting an 'external intellect'. Again, there are no major problems with evolution, you just don't like it.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Thread locked - hanks for participating.