= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
timtyler comments on Information theory and FOOM - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (93)
In the Levitt paper, 64% is the number of single-domain architecture proteins that are found in at least two of the 3 groups viruses, prokaryotes, and eukaryotes (figure 3). This is my (very close) approximation for the fraction of families in eukaryotes or prokaryotes found in both eukaryotes and prokaryotes, which isn't reported. 84% is computed from that information, plus the caption of figure 3 saying that prokaryotes contain 88% of SDA families. 73% is computed from all of that information.
There is no bias towards discovering genes shared with eukaryotes in ordinary sequencing. We sequence complete genomes. Almost all of the bacterial genes known come from these whole-genome projects. We've sequenced many more bacteria than eukaryotes. Bacterial genomes don't contain much repetitive intergenic DNA, so you get nice complete genome assemblies.
Life starting 3.7 billion years ago - could be. Google's top ten show claims ranging from 2.7GY to 4.4GY ago. Adding that .7 billion could make the information-growth curve more linear, and remove one exponentiation in my analysis.
Let's just say I'm measuring the information in DNA. Information in "the diversity of life" is too vague. I don't want to measure any information that an organism or an ecosystem gains from the environment by expressing those genetic codes.
So: with two data-points and a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you conclude that DNA-evolution has been slowing down?
It seems like pretty feeble evidence to me :-(
I should add that - conventionally - evolutionary rates are measured in 'darwins', and are based on trait variation (not variation in the underlying genotypes) because of how evolution is defined.
Dude. It's an idea. I said not to take my conclusions too seriously. This is not a refereed journal. Why do you think your job is only to find fault with ideas, and never to play with them, try them out, or look for other evidence?
Different people measure evolutionary rate or distance differently, depending on what their data is. People studying genetic evolution never use Darwins. The reason for bringing up genomes at all in this post is to look at the shape of the relationship between genome information and phenotypic complexity; so to start by measuring only phenotypes would get you nowhere.
Inaccurate premise: I don't think my job is "only to find fault with ideas". When I do that, it's often because that is the simplest and fastest way to contribute. Destruction is easier than construction - but it is pretty helpful nonetheless. Critics have saved me endless hours of frustration pursuing bad ideas. I wish to pass some of that on.
In this particular sub-thread, my behavior is actually fairly selfish: if there's reasonable evidence that DNA-evolution has been slowing down, I would be interested in hearing about it. However, I'm not going to find such evidence in this thread if people get the idea that this point has already been established.
I don't have strong evidence that DNA evolution has been slowing down in bacteria. I presented both evidence and explanation why it has been slowing down in eukaryotes. That is all that matters for this post; because the point of referring to DNA evolution in this post has to do with how efficiently evolution uses information in the production of intelligence. Eukaryotes are more intelligent than bacteria.