Interviewer->Dawkins: Name a process which increases the genome's information content

[Zoe]

Raygun99, wise up! I seem to remember that “the father or modern genetics” was an Augustinian monk.

Yep. (Actually, someone reminded me recently.) His name was Gregor Mendel. A little research came up with this info that you who are more technically minded probably already know. Cite

This is just one example of millions to your broadbrush thinking about the way “Christians” relate to science. One need not be fundamentalist to be devout.

[Raygun99]

Gregor Mendel being a recent fundamentalist (and yes, I certainly am familiar with Mendel)? We’re talking about the current climate here, and in any case, I in no way said that all fundamentalists or the devout share the same attitude or thought process. Nor does one religious person making a tremendous contribution to genetics almost 200 years ago (and not that Mendel was the only religious person to do so) make it the case that this attitude doesn’t exist among some fundamentalists.

[Saltire]

@Raygun99

That’s an attitude I see a lot from the devoutly religious that don’t have much experience with scientific thinking, though. It’s the only frame of reference they have, so they apply it to evolution, or with more frequency lately, global warming debates. They see scientists and see priests, or preachers, not understanding that the fact of the matter doesn’t weigh on any one individual. It’s a fundamental (ha!) misunderstanding of the scientific method, as you say, but it certainly sheds some light to me on how they’re approaching the issue.

I quoted this so you can read it again, Zoe. Pay particular attention to the first sentence. Notice the narrow brush?

[carterba]

@John Mace

…and a complete lack of understanding ofwhat science is and how it works. If anyone actually “disproved evolution”, that person would be given a Nobel Prize. I’m sure creationists think that person would be “excommunicated from science”, or something.

And there’d be a Nobel Prize for whoever came up with the replacement theory. I’ve always though that if someone disproved evolution, it would trigger a huge rush of money into biological sciences, not to mention that every budding scientist would be flocking to biology to be part of the next big thing… and yet the creationists think scientists want to cover up any evidence that supposedly contradicts evolution. Disproving evolution would probably be the biggest boon to biology since at least the discovery of DNA.

[Nancarrow]

IIRC, and if we’re talking strictly about the discipline of information theory and its application to the genetic code, asexual reproduction increases the GIC by one bit per generation, and sexual reproduction increases the GIC by up to sqrt(number of bases) per generation.

Thus spake David Mackay. (2-clicks to big pdf of textbook, I think ‘Why have sex?’ is chapter 19).
So the simple answer is ‘reproduction, and especially sex’.

[alterego]

There is no way that it is 1 bit. Can you explain? I don’t have time to read a chapter, but maybe a post…

[Larry_Borgia]

Interviewer->Dawkins: Name a process which increases the genome’s information content

Am I missing something? Isn’t sex the obvious answer?

Or what Nancarrow sad.

[John_Mace]

@Larry Borgia

Am I missing something? Isn’t sex the obvious answer?

Or what Nancarrow sad.

Not necessarily. If there were no mutations, then sex would just scramble up what is already there-- it wouldn’t increase the information content. If you rearrange the words in a sentence, you don’t increase information (unless by some grammatical trick).

[Giles]

@chrisk

First - I didn’t think that any evolutionary scientists have ever had any reason to look at stalactites, no. Geologists would, who young-earth-creationists have also butted heads with, and paleontologists, who kind of straddle the ground between geology and biology in some ways IIRC.

Also - if there was a theory that said it took millions of years to form stalactites, they probably mentioned in the small print that their results were presuming the ABSENCE of paper towels at the start of the process.

IANAGeologist, but I don’t think any theory of geology requires millions of years for stalactites to form. In fact, I doubt if many caves are more than a million years old. Stalactite formation can take place in a few decades or centuries, and has even been seen to occur in man-made tunnels and buildings. I suspect that these creationists are confusing stalactites with geological strata.

[alterego]

@Larry Borgia

Am I missing something? Isn’t sex the obvious answer?

What makes it obvious that sex always increases the amount of information that is actually stored in the genome? Aren’t some base pairs more important than others (“junk” DNA)? What if the child has one of the umpteen possible genetic disorders? Don’t they severely discount the amount of information in the genome, given that they often cause death in the organism, or a failure to reproduce, or less adaptive offspring?

@Medline

It is estimated that up to 50% of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among known pregnancies, the rate of miscarriage is approximately 10% and usually occurs between the 7th and 12th weeks of pregnancy.

Reproduction is not a hard and fast rule for increasing the amount of information in the genome, especially in the information theoretic sense. I stick to my original definition - you have to first of all see if the organism is even capable of maturing, and then have some measure of how surprised it is by the world. That is, how well was the genome able to predict and allow the organism to adapt to the environment it is born in? More bits does not equal more information!!! This interview question was so loaded as to be practically unanswerable in a straightforward manner, IMO… (IANAG!). cite

[Nancarrow]

@alterego

There is no way that it is 1 bit. Can you explain? I don’t have time to read a chapter, but maybe a post…

No. I don’t either!

Seriously, I do actually have the book, I’ll see if I can grok his explanation and regurgitate it sensibly sometime this… well, year. No promises though.

[Colibri]

To answer the question, a very common process that increases the genome’s information content over time is gene duplication. Entire genes are sometimes duplicated during reproduction. The second copy of the gene is free from direct selection since the first copy produces the original gene product. Therefore it can easily mutate to produce a product that may have some new and novel effect on the organism.

In addition, retroviruses can become incorporated into a host’s genome over evolutionary time. This is another way in which the informational content of the genome can increase.

[Larry_Borgia]

@John Mace

Not necessarily. If there were no mutations, then sex would just scramble up what is already there-- it wouldn’t increase the information content. If you rearrange the words in a sentence, you don’t increase information (unless by some grammatical trick).

Yeah, I guess you’re right. I was just thinking in a “snappy answers to stupid questions” mode.

[nameless]

@Colibri

To answer the question, a very common process that increases the genome’s information content over time is gene duplication. Entire genes are sometimes duplicated during reproduction.

Hell, why stop there? Copy all the fuckers. Polyploidy.

[Indistinguishable]

@John Mace

Not necessarily. If there were no mutations, then sex would just scramble up what is already there-- it wouldn’t increase the information content. If you rearrange the words in a sentence, you don’t increase information (unless by some grammatical trick).

I don’t know how exactly we’re defining the quantification of information for the purposes of this thread (measuring the information content of a particular genome by its compressed length according to some fixed scheme? Measuring the information content of the entire distribution of genomes across some population by applying Shannon’s formula?), but certainly there are contexts in which we consider “rearrangements” to affect information content. Otherwise, we’d just compress all our files by simply noting the number of 0s and number of 1s. But I may be misunderstanding what you’re saying.

[alterego]

@Indistinguishable

I don’t know how exactly we’re defining the quantification of information for the purposes of this thread (measuring the information content of a particular genome by its compressed length according to some fixed scheme? Measuring the information content of the entire distribution of genomes across some population by applying Shannon’s formula?) […]

Right, you need some kind of measure of the information content of the genome. This measure is NOT the ordering of the bits or the length of the genome or any other quantitative study of the genome alone. Rather, you have to observe the organism in its natural habitat in order to gauge the effectiveness of the genome’s interaction with its environment. As an example, I quote Dawkins in The Selfish Gene:

@Dawkins

In all this, remember that the phenotypic effects of a gene are the tools by which it levers itself into the next generation. All that I am going to add is that the tools may reach outside the individual body wall. What might it mean in practice to speak of a gene as having an extended phenotypic effect on the world outside the body in which it sits? Examples that spring to mind are artefacts like beaver dams, bird nests and caddis houses. Caddis flies are rather nondescript, drab brown insects, which most of us fail to notice as they fly rather clumsily over rivers. That is when they are adults. But before they emerge as adults they have a rather longer incarnation as larvae walking about the river bottom. And caddis larvae are anything but nondescript. They are among the most remarkable creatures on earth. Using cement of their own manufacture, they skilfully build tubular houses for themselves out of materials that they pick up from the bed of the stream. The house is a mobile home, carried about as the caddis walks, like the shell of a snail or hermit crab except that the animal builds it instead of growing it or finding it. Some species of caddis use sticks as building materials, others fragments of dead leaves, others small snail shells. But perhaps the most impressive caddis houses are the ones built in local stone. The caddis chooses its stones carefully, rejecting those that are too large or too small for the current gap in the wall, even rotating each stone until it achieves the snuggest fit.

How could you determine that the organism coded for this behavior if you did not observe it in that environment?