[Fis] QI & biological evolution

[Fis] QI & biological evolution

From: Richard Emery <[email protected]>
Date: Fri 02 Jun 2006 - 02:55:08 CEST

Stan Salthe asks,

(1) A question for Richard: Would it not be the gene pool, rather
than the
(which one?) genome that would be the site of genetic variability? Thus
the population would be the generator, and owner, of genetic
informational
entropy. Each realized genome would be one informational selection
(localization) from that entropic field, which would be somewhat like a
'wave function' in that new alleles would be forming all the time.

Stan,

Yes, I think you could say that about the gene pool, which comprises
the alleles of a population. And of course frequencies of alleles in
populations are known to play importance roles in evolution (e.g., D.
L. Hartl).

I also think you are more accurate than I in our respective
definitions of genomes. The most accepted definition, I think,
agrees with yours; that a genome is the "the total complement of
genes contained � in one complete haploid set of chromosomes of a
eukaryote" (D. L. Hartl). My looser definition allows genomes to
represent the genetic description of a species, such has the human
genome, which can be differentiated from a chimpanzee genome. This
would be an entirely digital genome, assuming I knew everything
important of epigenes and other genetic tweekers, and also assuming
that they are digital too.

If I knew everything important about the genes of a human genome,
which would be entirely digital information, or QI, would I have
enough information to make a human being, providing all the necessary
materials were available? I would say 'possibly,' if I somehow knew
everything important about epigenes and other genetic attributes.

Of course I am making a case that the digitality of genes qualifies
them as QI, and that phenotypes, organisms, and populations are the
utility functions of genes, operating analogously and continuously in
physical nature. Obviously there would be no digital genomes at all
for any species without their physical populations. Within those
spatial boundaries, which are defined by analogs instead of digits,
all of the alleles must be borne. But I don't picture those alleles
coming from the population per se; I see them coming from the genome
by way of its gene pool (as you have reasoned) � and this grand
assemblage of genes and epigenes define the species. I think the
alleles themselves are the actual sites of allele generation. Genes
do appear to act deterministically in the sense that they demonstrate
certain �strateges� for survival [sex to avoid genetic parasites
(Hamilton's red queen), Prisoners-Dilemma compromises, etc.]. Is
this simply a means of preserving biological QI?

Everything is metaphor, I suppose, demanding �the price of eternal
vigilance,� as Rosenblueth & Weiner have put it. I admit to be
leaning toward Dawkins� metaphors: his �selfish genes� and �extended
phenotypes� have their way with me (so far). And I also think
Gould�s "deep homology" trumps West-Eberhard's "homoplasy" as the
better explanation of information transfer. But when I see Harvard�s
elite � Mayr, Lewontin, Eldredge � refer to genes as "blueprints" of
proteins, I think they are quite confused about their metaphor, and
about other things too.

Maybe the genes are purely digital QI in biosystems, and the
analogous populations are the wave functions. After all, they carry
the biological QI forward as evolution occurs, acting as foster
parents for those precocious alleles, whose evolutionary benefits are
derived from entropy. Have I gone too far?

�Richard

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri Jun 2 02:57:32 2006


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 on Fri 02 Jun 2006 - 02:57:32 CEST