What’s your justification for the claim that “almost all of the information content of an organism resides in the amino-acid sequence of its domains”?
For your claims about “speed of evolution” to make any sense, it must be the case that we could get rid of the information content which does not reside in these sequences with minimal losses in evolutionary fitness. My guess is that this is not the case, hence your measure of “information” is quite suspect.
What’s your justification for the claim that “almost all of the information content of an organism resides in the amino-acid sequence of its domains”?
The paragraphs before that claim, plus the fact that the fraction of DNA devoted to regulation, such as promoter sequences, is a small fraction of that devoted to coding, and is also much more redundant. In short: That is the result you find when you measure it.
For your claims about “speed of evolution” to make any sense, it must be the case that we could get rid of the information content which does not reside in these sequences with minimal losses in evolutionary fitness.
I see no reason to think that. You can often kill an organism by changing 1 bit in its genome.
What’s your justification for the claim that “almost all of the information content of an organism resides in the amino-acid sequence of its domains”?
The paragraphs before that claim, plus the fact that the fraction of DNA devoted to regulation, such as promoter sequences, is a tiny fraction of that devoted to coding, and is also much more redundant. In short: That is the result you find when you measure it. This is fact, not opinion.
Even so, you’re saying that I have virtually all of the information needed to (in principle) reconstruct an organism once I see its DNA (which tells me the protein domains and their order therein). What about the information about its ontogenic process (the surrounding womb/shell that enables chemical reactions to happen in just the right way), its physical injuries and modifications, its upbrining, its diet, its culture …?
Even so, you’re saying that I have virtually all of the information needed to (in principle) reconstruct an organism once I see its DNA.
No, I’m not saying that. Yes, there is extra-genomic information. I’m sure that the increase in intelligence happens because more-complex creatures can extract more information from the environment. But that is an output, not an input, in my analysis; it goes into “intelligence”, not into “information input”. I am asking what function translates genomic information (plus epigenetic information) into “intelligence”, or an organism’s ability to solve problems.
No, I’m not saying that. Yes, there is extra-genomic information. I’m sure that the increase in intelligence happens because more-complex creatures can extract more information from the environment.
Yes, you were saying “that” where “that” refers to “almost all of the information content of an organism resides in the amino-acid sequence of its domains”. And that statement means that, but for practical difficulties, the DNA suffices to tell you what you need to do to build the organism (though you left a caveat that you might still need a small amount of extra information, which I assumed to mean e.g. age).
If you mean something else by it, then you’re using the terms in a non-standard way.
This isn’t an issue of organisms being able to extract more information from the environment; irrespective of how much information it extracts from the environment, you still need lots of information in addition to the genome to make a copy—and this is a big part of why Jurassic Park hasn’t already happened.
(By the way, based on our previous exchanges, we seem to be looking at similar problems and could help each other: one big hole in my knowledge is that of organic chemistry and thus how existing self-replicators work at the chemical level.)
Yes, you were saying “that” where “that” refers to “almost all of the information content of an organism resides in the amino-acid sequence of its domains”.
I assume you mean you’ve edited your previous comment. I’d appreciate it if, when people edit their posts or comments, they indicate that they have done so, and ideally how, in the very same comment/post. That said, I don’t want to be so nitpicky as to discourage contributions.
“almost all of the information content of an organism resides in the amino-acid sequence of its domains” is an accurate statement. The uterine environment is involved with the creation of another organism, but it is not part of the information content of the organism, except in the sense that everything that happens to an organism is recorded in damages to that organism.
“Almost all of the information content of an organism resides in the amino-acid sequence of its domains” seems simply wrong to me. Whatever the intended point was, it needs rephrasing.
the fraction of DNA devoted to regulation, such as promoter sequences, is a tiny fraction of that devoted to coding
Given that most of DNA is junk, considering “information” in raw storage terms makes little sense. It may be a tiny fraction, but is it an important contributor to genetic fitness? If it is, then it’s hard to argue that evolution has slowed down.
I see no reason to think that. You can often kill an organism by changing 1 bit in its genome.
ETA: I’m not disputing that, but see above. I’m trying to qualify the information’s overall contribution to genetic fitness.
What’s your justification for the claim that “almost all of the information content of an organism resides in the amino-acid sequence of its domains”?
For your claims about “speed of evolution” to make any sense, it must be the case that we could get rid of the information content which does not reside in these sequences with minimal losses in evolutionary fitness. My guess is that this is not the case, hence your measure of “information” is quite suspect.
The paragraphs before that claim, plus the fact that the fraction of DNA devoted to regulation, such as promoter sequences, is a small fraction of that devoted to coding, and is also much more redundant. In short: That is the result you find when you measure it.
I see no reason to think that. You can often kill an organism by changing 1 bit in its genome.
Even so, you’re saying that I have virtually all of the information needed to (in principle) reconstruct an organism once I see its DNA (which tells me the protein domains and their order therein). What about the information about its ontogenic process (the surrounding womb/shell that enables chemical reactions to happen in just the right way), its physical injuries and modifications, its upbrining, its diet, its culture …?
No, I’m not saying that. Yes, there is extra-genomic information. I’m sure that the increase in intelligence happens because more-complex creatures can extract more information from the environment. But that is an output, not an input, in my analysis; it goes into “intelligence”, not into “information input”. I am asking what function translates genomic information (plus epigenetic information) into “intelligence”, or an organism’s ability to solve problems.
Yes, you were saying “that” where “that” refers to “almost all of the information content of an organism resides in the amino-acid sequence of its domains”. And that statement means that, but for practical difficulties, the DNA suffices to tell you what you need to do to build the organism (though you left a caveat that you might still need a small amount of extra information, which I assumed to mean e.g. age).
If you mean something else by it, then you’re using the terms in a non-standard way.
This isn’t an issue of organisms being able to extract more information from the environment; irrespective of how much information it extracts from the environment, you still need lots of information in addition to the genome to make a copy—and this is a big part of why Jurassic Park hasn’t already happened.
(By the way, based on our previous exchanges, we seem to be looking at similar problems and could help each other: one big hole in my knowledge is that of organic chemistry and thus how existing self-replicators work at the chemical level.)
I misspoke. I’ve fixed it now.
I assume you mean you’ve edited your previous comment. I’d appreciate it if, when people edit their posts or comments, they indicate that they have done so, and ideally how, in the very same comment/post. That said, I don’t want to be so nitpicky as to discourage contributions.
“almost all of the information content of an organism resides in the amino-acid sequence of its domains” is an accurate statement. The uterine environment is involved with the creation of another organism, but it is not part of the information content of the organism, except in the sense that everything that happens to an organism is recorded in damages to that organism.
“Almost all of the information content of an organism resides in the amino-acid sequence of its domains” seems simply wrong to me. Whatever the intended point was, it needs rephrasing.
Rephrased.
Given that most of DNA is junk, considering “information” in raw storage terms makes little sense. It may be a tiny fraction, but is it an important contributor to genetic fitness? If it is, then it’s hard to argue that evolution has slowed down.
ETA: I’m not disputing that, but see above. I’m trying to qualify the information’s overall contribution to genetic fitness.
I’m only arguing about the speed at which information is produced, and the speed at which intelligence is produced.