I realised that the lungfish won after I jumped the gun.
>The problem with the above table as a measure of complexity
>can be illustrated by considering a naughty young boy (Glenn
>can identify with this :) who has to stay after school and write
>"I will not talk in school" 1000 times on the blackboard. What
>is the complexity (information content) of what he has written?
>It is a very long message, but highly compressible so the
>original length is not necessarily a good indicator of the
>information content.
>
And I fully agree that the compressibility is the correct measure of
complexity (naughty kid that I am). But I would be willing to wager a big
steak that when we finally do know both genomes,that the lungfish will win.
(I am taking a chance here) I do not think we have the most complex genome.
It goes against the history of science to hold that. Whenever we have held to
something really special about man we have been wrong.
The earth is not at the center of the solar system
The earth is not at the center of the universe.
Man is not the only creature to use tools (although currently he is the only
one to use a tool to make a tool).
I am willing to go with the odds, stick my neck out and predict that man does
not have the most complex genome. I do not have the data today.
>Thus, I am hesitant to accept the length of the coding genome
>as a measure of complexity.
>
>Now I would like to return to another question, whether the
>information content (as defined by Shannon) increases during
>evolution or more specifically due to a mutation. Based primarily
>on what little I know about info-theory and my intuition I had
>indicated in a "conversation" with Steve Jones that a random
>mutation would increase the info-content. This was in response
>to a bold assertion by Steve that information content would
>never increase due to random mutation. There was also a
>challenge to show such a case. Rummaging through my collection
>of papers I managed to find some concrete evidence that mutations
>do increase the Shannon IC. The reference is:
>
> J. S. Rao, C.P. Geevan and G.S. Rao (1982). "Significance of the
> Information Content of DNA in Mutations and Evolution,"
> <J. Theor. Biology> 96:571-577.
>
>Here the authors consider one point mutations and show that the
>only requirement for the Shannon IC to increase is that the
>frequency of the codon which mutates must be larger than the
>frequency of the codon to which it is mutated.
>
Elegant proof.
On can look at language as an analogy for dna. Each language has phonemes
which are the shortest sounds in a language. Starting with a single language
and isolating two populations, random mutation to these phonemes over about
1000 years will render the two populations unable to speak to each other.
Yet the information content of the two languages may not have increased at
all. Both languages are able to express any thought or idea whatsoever.
Within each language the individual mutations might be viewed as deleterious
or harmful to communication yet communication is not hindered in either of the
daughter populations.
In English, the long vowels, used to be pronounced for a longer time, like the
third pronounciation in Chinese. That is why they were called long vowels.
Then arund 1450-1650, there was a change, a mutation in the way these vowels
were pronounced and we now live with an outdated definition of long vowels.
The complexity of the language however did not change.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm