4 ms·

Has anyone calculated how much energy\entropy is expended to evolve a functioning genome? My math is far too weak to even know where to start. It may give a b

Has anyone calculated how much energy\entropy is expended to evolve a functioning genome? My math is far too weak to even know where to start. It may give a better sense of how much is lost when a species goes extinct.

lisper 6y ago
Energy and entropy are not really the right metric here. The thing that is lost when a species goes extinct is information, and specifically, information that has been acquired by a process of parallel search that has been going on for literally a few billion years, so the odds of reproducing that information once it is lost is effectively zero. Imagine working on a term paper for a few billion years and then having your computer crash and not having a backup. That's what happens when a species goes extinct.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Would there be a way to use "information entropy" as the measurement? Late in the day so I'm struggling to finish my thoughts, but putting this here in case you can connect the dots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
  - lisper 6y ago
    Yes, but it's tricky for two reasons. First, we don't really know how to quantify the relative value of two different species. It's kind of like trying to quantify the value of a book. Losing a volume of Aristotle's Poetics is probably worse than losing a Harlequin romance. And second, the information is not just resident in the genome. We can quantify how many bits of information is contained in DNA, but just knowing the complete gene sequence of a salamander is not enough to be able to make a salamander. You need to embed those genes in the right environment, and we have no idea how to quantify the information needed to describe that. So actually putting a number on it is hopeless. The best you can do is look at the effort it would take to reproduce that information once it's lost, which is essentially infinite.
    - smiley1437 6y ago
      Thank you, you are thinking much clearer than I And when you put it like that, it's particularly upsetting that we lose up to 150 species a day
    - acomjean 6y ago
      They can use genetics to make aproximate evolutionary trees since different species share a lot of common genetics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree That being said changes are very slow and extinction is pretty tragic.
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      The more I learn about genetics, the less I feel like we know. It’s definitely fascinating, thanks for your perspective!
- abecedarius 6y ago
  More on information and evolution in chapter 19 of MacKay, http://www.inference.org.uk/mackay/itila/book.html http://www.inference.org.uk/mackay/itila/book.html
- Geeflow 6y ago
  To extend on your analogy a bit: Imagine working on that term paper on GitHub and then having your repo deleted. The odds of reproducing that information completely is zero. But there might still be some forks (related species) around. So it's pretty hard to wipe out everything.

lisper 6y ago

Energy and entropy are not really the right metric here. The thing that is lost when a species goes extinct is information, and specifically, information that has been acquired by a process of parallel search that has been going on for literally a few billion years, so the odds of reproducing that information once it is lost is effectively zero. Imagine working on a term paper for a few billion years and then having your computer crash and not having a backup. That's what happens when a species goes extinct.

edmundsauto 6y ago
Would there be a way to use "information entropy" as the measurement? Late in the day so I'm struggling to finish my thoughts, but putting this here in case you can connect the dots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
- lisper 6y ago
  Yes, but it's tricky for two reasons. First, we don't really know how to quantify the relative value of two different species. It's kind of like trying to quantify the value of a book. Losing a volume of Aristotle's Poetics is probably worse than losing a Harlequin romance. And second, the information is not just resident in the genome. We can quantify how many bits of information is contained in DNA, but just knowing the complete gene sequence of a salamander is not enough to be able to make a salamander. You need to embed those genes in the right environment, and we have no idea how to quantify the information needed to describe that. So actually putting a number on it is hopeless. The best you can do is look at the effort it would take to reproduce that information once it's lost, which is essentially infinite.
  - smiley1437 6y ago
    Thank you, you are thinking much clearer than I And when you put it like that, it's particularly upsetting that we lose up to 150 species a day
  - acomjean 6y ago
    They can use genetics to make aproximate evolutionary trees since different species share a lot of common genetics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree That being said changes are very slow and extinction is pretty tragic.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    The more I learn about genetics, the less I feel like we know. It’s definitely fascinating, thanks for your perspective!
abecedarius 6y ago
More on information and evolution in chapter 19 of MacKay, http://www.inference.org.uk/mackay/itila/book.html http://www.inference.org.uk/mackay/itila/book.html
Geeflow 6y ago
To extend on your analogy a bit: Imagine working on that term paper on GitHub and then having your repo deleted. The odds of reproducing that information completely is zero. But there might still be some forks (related species) around. So it's pretty hard to wipe out everything.