Predicting evolution

[jeffotron]

I'll give a quote from a website that got me thinking about predicting evolution.

 

“As proteins interact in the cell, they rely on each others' characteristics. It has just been shown that proteins that interact with a lot of other proteins cannot evolve, or at least, only do so at a very slow rate. See Nature, 28 June 2001, and M. Kimura, T. Ohta, Science, 26 April 2002.

They propose that this is because of great internal dependencies which inhibit the changing of the 'contract' of the protein. It is also noted that evolution does take place, but very slowly as both parts of the dependency need to evolve in a compatible way at the same time.” http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/index.html

 

Great site to check out if you like programming, otherwise highly recommend checking it out if only to get a different perspective on some basic biological concepts.

 

So here's where you guys come in. Criticize or contribute to the following ideas:

The quote states that complex biochemical pathways become resistant to change. As an organism progresses along a given evolutionary developmental path, does the organism become more resistant to further change too? By evolutionary developmental path (a phrase I basically made up) I mean the path an organism takes to get from point A to point B in evolutionary terms. Putting the whole thing more concretely, humans developed from small mammals in the 65million years since the disappearance of dinosaurs. In that time, I assume more biochemical processes exhibit greater degrees of interdependence in us now than they did in our ancestors of 65 million years ago (a major point of contention since I have no information to base this assumption on, it would just be convenient for my argument if it were true). So taken together with the higher degree of interdependence we must be more resistant to change. Could you give a protein a number that described its potential for change based on how many other proteins rely on its current conformation? Could you define a threshold above which the rate of change would statistically approach zero? And for the remaining pathways/proteins below that threshold could you similarly identify pathways/proteins highly susceptible to change, generate some algorithms based on the capacity for change, and run models of different environmental pressures to predict future evolution? Whatever predictions generated, you would have to be careful not to extend them too far into the future because then those statistically irrelevant pathways start creeping back towards relevancy.

 

Interested to hear what other people think...

[Ophiolite]

As an organism progresses along a given evolutionary developmental path, does the organism become more resistant to further change too? By evolutionary developmental path (a phrase I basically made up) I mean the path an organism takes to get from point A to point B in evolutionary terms.

Your first sentence makes me uncomfortable: progresses along a given evolutionary developmental path. There is a strong implication of direction in this phrase. The notion of a direction in evolution makes evolutionists squirm. It might be better to say it is the path an organism has taken, rather than takes. That would make it a matter of historical record rather than teleological necessity.

a major point of contention since I have no information to base this assumption on, it would just be convenient for my argument if it were true

You have identified a major weakness in your speculation. Perhaps I should say the major weakness.

I see where you are heading with the rest of your thoughts. I need to think on them further if I am to offer any meaningful comment.

[Daecon]

If you bred fruit flies in a semi-aquatic environment, what would happen... say after 20 years or so?

[fpojohn]

I'll give a quote from a website that got me thinking about predicting evolution.

 

“As proteins interact in the cell, they rely on each others' characteristics. It has just been shown that proteins that interact with a lot of other proteins cannot evolve, or at least, only do so at a very slow rate. See Nature, 28 June 2001, and M. Kimura, T. Ohta, Science, 26 April 2002.

They propose that this is because of great internal dependencies which inhibit the changing of the 'contract' of the protein. It is also noted that evolution does take place, but very slowly as both parts of the dependency need to evolve in a compatible way at the same time.” http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/index.html

 

Great site to check out if you like programming, otherwise highly recommend checking it out if only to get a different perspective on some basic biological concepts.

 

So here's where you guys come in. Criticize or contribute to the following ideas:

The quote states that complex biochemical pathways become resistant to change. As an organism progresses along a given evolutionary developmental path, does the organism become more resistant to further change too? By evolutionary developmental path (a phrase I basically made up) I mean the path an organism takes to get from point A to point B in evolutionary terms. Putting the whole thing more concretely, humans developed from small mammals in the 65million years since the disappearance of dinosaurs. In that time, I assume more biochemical processes exhibit greater degrees of interdependence in us now than they did in our ancestors of 65 million years ago (a major point of contention since I have no information to base this assumption on, it would just be convenient for my argument if it were true). So taken together with the higher degree of interdependence we must be more resistant to change. Could you give a protein a number that described its potential for change based on how many other proteins rely on its current conformation? Could you define a threshold above which the rate of change would statistically approach zero? And for the remaining pathways/proteins below that threshold could you similarly identify pathways/proteins highly susceptible to change, generate some algorithms based on the capacity for change, and run models of different environmental pressures to predict future evolution? Whatever predictions generated, you would have to be careful not to extend them too far into the future because then those statistically irrelevant pathways start creeping back towards relevancy.

 

Interested to hear what other people think...

 

 

 

 

Man now adapts his environment to fit his present capability's, Evolution requires the survival of the fittest. In our civilized society we do not let the week die, therefore we will not adapt.

[iNow]

Man now adapts his environment to fit his present capability's, Evolution requires the survival of the fittest. In our civilized society we do not let the week die, therefore we will not adapt.

 

Huh? You seriously think evolution has stopped for humans because we have some technology at our disposal? Hell, the technology itself may cause our extinction.

[Realitycheck]

Or the technology will enable further evolution. We can still preserve advantageous mutations. They just won't have any effect on lesser species.

[NeonBlack]

iNow, I think that was his point.

However, we are still evolving as it seems dumb people are having almost twice as many kids as smart people.

[iNow]

iNow, I think that was his point.

However, we are still evolving as it seems dumb people are having almost twice as many kids as smart people.

 

In the US, I think it's actually 6 times as many.

[NeonBlack]

In the US, I think it's actually 6 times as many.

 

Ouch. We're headed the way of the dodo.

[SkepticLance]

If Jeff's original notion were correct, that would lead to the prediction that more complex organisms evolve more slowly than less complex. Look at the fossil record. Has evolution slowed down. I think not!

[fredrik]

I didn't read all the original article but the appearance of jeffotron's post induces some spontaneous and thoughtless quick associations... that come more from a information theoretic physics perspective rather than bio...

 

The quote states that complex biochemical pathways become resistant to change. As an organism progresses along a given evolutionary developmental path, does the organism become more resistant to further change too?

 

This scentence to me sounds like saying that acquired knowledge and skill (associating learning ~ adapation ~ evolution, in a larger setting, not just the dna) may possess a kind of inertia.

 

In general, I think this is plausible thinking, if you make the assocation that the more trained you are, the higher confidence and skill do you acquire in predicting your environment, which in turns effectively means a higher handling skill of environmental disturbances. But this tuning is specific to each environment, and at some point I think there is a information constraint that limits the intertia possible - even giving infinite training, because once the learning capability start to saturate, the residual game becomes that of a re-learning.

 

This means, that I don't think the "evolutionary rate" goes to zero, it rather maybe approaches a residual level, where there is random changes that could only be resolve by increasing the information capacity. Maybe the dna would need to grow into a black hole and consume the entire universe

 

I was lame enough to not read the article, but imagining a possible programmers view, by my hunch induced guess and conjecture is that the entire "programming view" must LIVE within the game itself. Rather than god beeing the programmer, the world consists of interacting programmers. And each one has a limited memory, but not necessarily fixed. This will put a bound to the inertia and prevent evolution from stalling.

 

/Fredrik

 

Ie. suppose that we "collect data", and from that make a conclusion of an observed pattern. The confidence in this pattern must somehow be limited, but the more data we use for training the more confidence should be get. But what if our processing and memory puts a constraint on the amount of data we can relate to. Then at saturation, the process can proceed only be, retransforming the current data, and release the most significant data bit in order to make room for fresh data.

 

I think of the microstructures or objects and observers, to be a manifestation of the transformation and rating rules that makes these decisions. those who are successful in this will survive, or remain "stable", if we are talking about physics and particles, others will destabilise and die.

 

Ie. the response and rating rules of the organisms are somehow coded in their microstructure. The higher level encoding in organisms, with DNA and the protein synthesis and replication machiner is interesting, and although different, many conceptual parallells to the foundational physics abstractions can be seen.

 

I've gained alot of personal inspiration from spending a couple of years trying to understand yeast cells, and then trying to abstract that... you get say X. If you do the same with physics, abstract it... and they seem to get something very close to X! It can't be a conincidence.

 

/Fredrik