RobertLumley comments on Neuroscience basics for LessWrongians - Less Wrong

84 Post author: ChrisHallquist 26 July 2012 05:10AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (102)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RobertLumley 28 July 2012 07:05:05PM 0 points [-]

Actually, we can guess that a piece of DNA is nonfunctional if it seems to have undergone neutral evolution (roughly, accumulation of functionally equivalent mutations) at a rate which implies that it was not subject to any noticeable positive selection pressure over evolutionary time.

This actually isn't necessarily true. If there is a section of the genome A that needs to act on another section of the genome C with section B in between, and A needs to act on C with a precise (or relatively so) genomic distance between them, B can neutrally evolve, even though it's still necessary for the action of A on C, since it provides the spacing.

Comment author: Baughn 02 September 2012 02:47:45PM *  1 point [-]

Thus, serving a purely structural function.

In that case the complexity in bits of B, for length N, becomes log2(N) instead of 2*N. It's not quite 0, but it's a lot closer.