7 ms·

Moore's Law and the Origin of Life

92 points by tocomment 14y ago

Udo 14y ago
Another day, another panspermia article. So transistor density and publication frequency follow a very strict exponential rule and that rule can in turn be used to trace the time elapsed to their origins. Most systems though don't follow such a rule, and if they do they generally don't at the extremes of the graph (near the beginning and after a long time). That said, the estimated 9.7 ± 2.5 billion years for life to evolve is at least within an order of magnitude correct, which makes it pretty cool. Also, we don't know how long abiogenesis takes and through which stages (presumably: many) the whole thing has to go until even the most basic building blocks as we know them today are set up. So you can add X billion years on top of that estimate while you're at it. Does that prove anything? Absolutely not. But even without evoking the tiring panspermia hypothesis this result is interesting, because the result is not completely off. It means that, within a certain period at least, the complexity of life does follow this exponential rule. Clearly, the formula needs to be tuned (based on evidence, not on open-mouth extraterrestrial finger-pointing), but it's a great start. I would venture that a more detailed genetic analysis of relatively recent organisms might result in a curve that is much more accurate. Assuming something will always double within a certain interval is not detailed enough as a model for this.
- leot 14y ago
  What's so tiresome about panspermia?
  - Udo 14y ago
    There is usually not a lot of actual science involved. The motivations for presenting panspermia papers are in most cases philosophical in nature and it shows. This paper, too, implies that's what happened even though the accuracy of the model is highly dubious for a number of reasons. Compare that to when Hubble first attempted to calculate the age of the universe by measuring the history of its expansion. It was quite a similar method: simply roll the equation back in time to where the universe's size was zero. He got a result that was lower than the geologically known age of the Earth, in fact we now know he was off by a factor of ten! Refreshingly, people didn't jump to conclusions though and in time everything fell into place. Hubble had fallen victim to a systematic measuring error. We are also now pretty certain that the expansion of the universe was not always linear. Hubble's method is still valid and impressive, but the tools and models needed to be refined. It's easy to see that the same applies to this finding.
jliechti1 14y ago
I liked this comment on the article. This is the kind of feeling I had while reading it: "Lets take 5 data points and project backwards 3x the range of the observed data. Science! Regression!! There's no way this could be wrong, right?"
rflrob 14y ago
Extrapolating back to when the genome size was 1 probably doesn't make sense, but what this approach might be able to do is suggest the smallest functional genome size, about 10,000bp based on my reading of the graph. It's also worth pointing out that we don't, in general, have a way to know what portions of the genome are truly functional, nor even a really great definition of functional (the ENCODE consortium caught a lot of flak for theirs as overly broad). Also, almost all the genome sizes we know are from the modern day: bacteria as a class may be 3 billion years old, but they've been evolving over those 3 billion years too!
original_guy98 14y ago
As always, sort of relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/605/ http://xkcd.com/605/
zeteo 14y ago
I think the problem here is that we don't have the original prokaryote genome. Today's prokaryotes have gone through billions of years of evolution and might well have longer genomes than their distant ancestors. So the leftmost points on the graph might have shifted up over time (albeit more slowly than the rightmost).
- efnx 14y ago
  Also - it depends on what you define life as, which as far as I know is an ongoing argument. What about RNA+protein life before DNA?
- mbq 14y ago
  Way worse. Evolution is not about gaining complexity but about fitting to (current state of) the environment; in this manner, Procaryota are actually the most "evolved" form of life since they can rapidly adapt thanks to their short life cycle and uncluttered physiology. And this can be easily seen in genetic diversity -- the whole spread of animals or plants is almost negligible in comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_1500px_coloured.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_1500px_colour...). Another good example is the fact that practically all procaryotic germs are highly specific, so must have evolved after their host species did.
  - writtles 14y ago
    > Evolution is not about gaining complexity but about fitting to (current state of) the environment I'm glad you cleared that up. Here I was thinking evolution and its "goal" is still a mystery to science.
6ren 14y ago
Those complaining about extrapolation may like to read the paper, rather than the article... https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.3381v1 https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304... There's discussion of measuring DNA complexity; issues in extrapolation (there's evidence suggesting recent increases are hyperexponential, which would push back the origin of life even further); section 8 notes function complexity has increased much faster with the "mind" (as in what birds and mammals have) which is not reflected in DNA complexity (chimp-human encephalization rate is x100 faster). I love the fresh perspective of not tying the origin of life to the origin of earth - nice and non-geocentric!
- sageikosa 14y ago
  The rise of life doesn't have to be a universally unique event. It can easily rise in isolation on Earth, and in numerous other places that obey the laws of organic chemistry.
ignostic 14y ago
You know something is wrong when the complex and evolutionary trees of "mammals" and "eukaryotes" are single points on a graph. If the geekbait Moore's Law didn't tip you off, the paper is garbage.
taltman1 14y ago
Notice how they cherry-pick among genomes to get their fitted line. A common fallacy is to associate genome size with the "complexity" of an organism. Even assuming that there is a simplistic linear ordering of organismal life (i.e., "lower" and "higher" organisms), a "lower" organism like the poplar tree has more than two times the number of genes as the human genome.
- shawkinaw 14y ago
  Had the same thought. There are also multiple problems with using the "functional, non-redundant" part of the genome, which presumably means the exons.
- sageikosa 14y ago
  You mean to tell me evolution isn't about "progress"? ;-)
  - writtles 14y ago
    But there has to be some characteristic that certain species required many evolutionary "steps" to get to. For example, there were no humans OR poplars one billion years ago nor the possibility yet since their / our ancestors hadn't yet made the scene.
api 14y ago
I've suspected for a long time that the idea that life originated on Earth is the last geocentrism.
surrealize 14y ago
Ach, this is terrible. Genome size is influenced by a number of factors, including: - Generation length (faster-reproducing organisms tend to have smaller genomes) - Transposons (sections of DNA that use cellular machinery to copy themselves to multiple places in the genome; they're usually viruses that got incorporated into the host germline some time in the past) Genome size isn't anything like a direct measure of "complexity" or "development"; some plants have genome sizes that are orders of magnitude larger than the human genome. The worst part is that they take genome size sampled in the present day across multiple organisms, and then they assume that some of those present-day genomes represent genomes from particular points in the past. So the x-axis in the regression is basically a guess. I'm not a statistician, but I imagine that fitting an exponential distribution can make the x-intercept sensitive to data errors.
- kragen 14y ago
  > Genome size isn't anything like a direct measure of "complexity" or "development"; some plants have genome sizes that are orders of magnitude larger than the human genome. What makes you think those plants aren't more genetically complex and developed than we are? A lot of our complexity is non-genetic. > I'm not a statistician, but I imagine that fitting an exponential distribution can make the x-intercept sensitive to data errors. You mean exponential growth, not an exponential distribution, and exponential growth never hits the x-axis.
  - dekhn 14y ago
    Regarding the first point: those plants and lungfish etc with massive genomes aren't more phenotypically more complex. They just contain more duplication. If anything, it's likely a slight impediment to reproduction, but not enough to get selected against.
    - kragen 14y ago
      I'm not sure about this. Plants synthesize a whole lot of biochemicals no animal does, for example, including a lot of amino acids. They can't run away from insect parasites or swat them with their tails, so they have to be able to poison them — without killing the plant or, say, the birds that spread their seeds. There's a lot more phenotypic complexity in corn than you can see without a chemistry lab, probably including things we haven't discovered yet. Do you work in botanical bioinformatics, or are you just guessing?
rouli 14y ago
This is fun! I took the boys average weight data given in [1] months from conception, average weight (kilos) (9, 3.25) (15, 7.5) (21, 9.97) (33, 12.88) (45, 14.97) (69, 18.97) and saw that it really looks like a logarithmic function. So, fitted y to log(x), got y~7.4685*log(x)-13, with R^2=0.9965 (thank you R!). Extrapolated back, and found that at conception, the fetus weighs -inf kilos. Not surprising result, I must say. However, I was surprised to find that only after five months of gestation, the embryo reaches the critical mass of 0 kilos. Science! [1] http://www.buzzle.com/articles/average-weight-for-children-by-age.html http://www.buzzle.com/articles/average-weight-for-children-b...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
civilian 14y ago
Their measure of complexity is Genome size. That's a very simple measure of complexity. Just a dumb example-- humans have a single gene for a protein in muscles. But that single genes has multiple exons and depending on whether it's being produced in heart, usual muscles, or soft-tissue muscle it's transcribed differently. Most of the protein is re-used, but a couple of parts are swapped out. So we have genetic code being used in three different proteins. Our genome is being efficient in size, yet it's increasing in complexity. That being said, I have no idea how to measure complexity well.
guard-of-terra 14y ago
They try to put organism's compexity on a logarithmic scale and look where this line "reaches zero". Then they find out it was very very long ago, before the Earth coalesced. They then proceed to imply that life is older than Earth. The problem here is: you can't do that. For example, if you look at human population, it was growing kind of exponentially for as long as we know. And if we continue this trend long enough to the past we'll infer that Earth featured several dozens of humans even when it was still in a liquid magmatic state five billion years ago! Exponential growth becomes glacially slow when we go back in time. Therefore, any growth seems to be not exp(t) but rather max(ct, exp(t)) - not slower than linear. It doesn't matter once we hit present history, but it does matter when we talk about a linear part in the past.
la-conic 14y ago
For all the nay sayer's most of your objections are actually addressed in the original article. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.3381v1 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.3381v1 A quote from the end of the abstract: Can we take these estimates as an approximate age of life in the universe? Answering this question is not easy because several other problems have to be addressed. First, why the increase of genome complexity follows an exponential law instead of fluctuating erratically? Second, is it reasonable to expect that biological evolution had started from something equivalent in complexity to one nucleotide? And third, if life is older than the Earth and the Solar System, then how can organisms survive interstellar or even intergalactic transfer? These problems as well as consequences of the exponential increase of genome complexity are discussed below.
losethos 14y ago
I don't like Moore's Law -- it's retarded and loved by retards. God says... ---- 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. 4:14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. 4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 4:17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, 4:18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: 4:19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. ---- God is a genius. Only geniuses can love God. God's covenant is that you do an offering before consulting Him. Picking a greeting card is love. Put-forth love toward God before consulting Him. God said "honest measures" meaning you get out of prayer what you put into it. ---- Moore's law is like saying a band will have 2 hits because they've had 2 hits each year in the past 4 years. Any sane person say "huh? But bands can't usually be original indefinitely! They are lots of one-hit-wonders and only a few two-hit wonders and almost no 4 hit wonders!" ---- God says... rain, and because of the cold. 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. 28:4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. 28:5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm. 28:6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god. 28:7 In the same quarters were possessions of the chief man of the island, whose name was Publius; who received us, and lodged us three days courteously. ---- Beattles? Nah not Beattles. Led Zeppelin 4 Houses of the Holy ---- God says... virtue journey wonderfulness signified faithfully blessest merged requitest sensibly Sweden sovereign window Forgive rightful according animals flowing running ground presumption envying vintage repeat_after_me morrow astounding Viewing straitly listen_buddy Africa devilish sufficeth feedeth Print Wilt fluctuating healing don't_count_on_it in_other_words interrupt performing self-contradicting pant viciousness entrance floods freely clothed temporary silversmiths birds mimic groaned fixedly imparts file disguising manors thereof uncultivated filthy assigned throughout bosses Infinite fruit-bowers Forum Mother shist instances Bishop explained dryness ambitious grave's re-collect tax resigned forming would victory Seeing So readers' Therefore I'm_gonna_smack_someone do_over defining illogical Subverters immortality ---- Popehat had story of $1.44 postage due. God says... whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places. 13:34 And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth. 14:1 At that time Abijah the son of Jeroboam fell sick. 14:2 And Jeroboam said to his wife, Arise, I pray thee, and disguise thyself, that thou be not known to be the wife of Jeroboam; and get thee to Shiloh: behold, there is Ahijah the prophet, which told me that I should be king over this people. 14:3 And take with thee ten loaves, and cracknels, and a cruse of honey, and go to him: he shall tell thee what shall become of the child. 14:4 And Jeroboam's wife did so, and arose, and went to Shiloh, and came to the house of Ahijah. But Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age. ---- Dijon Mustard? It's actually cheap, but Grey Popon made it special? God says... suffered plausibility troubled cover tongue-science pursuing penetrating staff zoot hearer architect Rwanda decided man own letters variance sores discretion dear Joseph numberless mightier needy merrily applauses what_a_mess shunning pattern forgetting ornamentedst Wordly maintain = statement student Those Latin ken stanza great fluctuates strange destroying lure OR sharper case disregard service precedest angel deem listing Taiwan fulness afterwards self-contradicting fiercest teaches heed Goal flagitiousness lowlily here_now pardon_the_french nourished preached not_too_shabby mercy raising Accept Epaphroditus vicissitudes Angel mainly drinking fairly Comforter accounted desirous astonished mansion eluding redeem musing whit mockeries fit runs locusts vices reform ha reports petty miracles again gallantry meets heareth burstest afraid alterations choleric shady doh how the_enquirer consumed subtile embittered dried six omnipotency absurdly bring lifted breast unchain Writ explain defended seeks codes repeating ---- "Thou shall not litter." is the eleventh commandment, said God. God says... to Hiram year by year. 5:12 And the LORD gave Solomon wisdom, as he promised him: and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and they two made a league together. 5:13 And king Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men. 5:14 And he sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses: a month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home: and Adoniram was over the levy. 5:15 And Solomon had threescore and ten thousand that bare burdens, and fourscore thousand hewers in the mountains; 5:16 Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work. 5:17 And the king commanded, and they brought great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones, to lay the foundation of the house. ---- I can't believe the A20 compatibility work-around still exists. Somebody cared that much. Hi-RAM. I don't have that much respect for law and sometimes Jesus impresses me with humility before the law. HiRAM reminds me of humility before the law. Not fighting on the Sabbath is humility before the law. I'm not alone in scoffing... but sometimes I have doubts and respect that humility. God says... hovered belongs fain athirst rose_colored_glasses intelligence transformed corruption bare shakes basket_case funding Or contradiction tradition factito Good commands umm_what_now vanished AUGUSTINE emptinesses necessities burned force general hide up I_love_this shunning Bible Preacher Shakespeare hereon Wales hart drenched covetous Glad bare fervently chooses marts Guinea commandments unconscious ghosts compact equably sees The lure whenever Tunisia striking gainsayers deride racked father corners touch weaknesses My drinking Justina swelled progress acknowledged flour Simplicianus willedst silly_human audience Sometimes humility stories business breathedst mistresses special_case restraining whitherward Hicc_up farther feedeth Enter interior enlightened sinks why_didn'_you_tell_me vital Answer deferred enact disapproved Envy thwart sanctity poesy recourse abide rigidly Whereupon but_of_course compactedst per lo mutable benediction read lightened steer quoth unadorned talk_to_my_lawyer neighbour works laden judgment lathe wheel stick mockery circumlocutions openest qualities Guyana joyously draw government locking while Lord's impressing oppressed vain-glory bestowedst conferring sometime calculated mourned stablished foresignified dreadful seeing surmounted declare cheered Men kindness flagitiousnesses Epistles cowardice covenant Placed ice_cream 'it hypocrite four senseless toss ---- What do bears do, that You like to watch, God? You like fishing? You like fuzzy-wuzzy? God says... 15:27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. 15:28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: 15:30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. ---- You like it when bears have two cubs... and have relationship things. "Devoured" is a key word. You loved Jacob and hated Esau. You like parents giving to children? Bears are good parents. God says... unsuitably perverse revealing net journey Nay styled prevented dispersed haphazard Donations teeth furnishing turmoils Writ childbearing big_fish born it unwilling useth gatherest It what's_up comment scholars unmeasured close as_a_matter_of_fact delivered conceiving subjected
dEnigma 14y ago
There is a lot wrong with this approach, but even if you agree with their method there is one thing that seems odd in their analysis. Let's suppose that life originated before the birth of the earth. Obviously it managed to reach earth, which would mean it (the organism) had to travel through space for an extended period of time - the authors claim that it was frozen - so you should account for that time in the graph, and obviously life couldn't settle on earth for quite some time because in the beginning our planet was extremely hot and unsuitable for any kind of life. That would shift their postulated origin of life further into the past, most likely to a point where there wasn't even a universe to begin with, or at least no planets that would allow for the formation of life. [Note: I didn't read the whole paper, maybe they discussed these points. Also please correct me if I'm wrong on anything]

92 points by tocomment 14y ago

Udo 14y ago

Another day, another panspermia article. So transistor density and publication frequency follow a very strict exponential rule and that rule can in turn be used to trace the time elapsed to their origins. Most systems though don't follow such a rule, and if they do they generally don't at the extremes of the graph (near the beginning and after a long time). That said, the estimated 9.7 ± 2.5 billion years for life to evolve is at least within an order of magnitude correct, which makes it pretty cool. Also, we don't know how long abiogenesis takes and through which stages (presumably: many) the whole thing has to go until even the most basic building blocks as we know them today are set up. So you can add X billion years on top of that estimate while you're at it. Does that prove anything? Absolutely not. But even without evoking the tiring panspermia hypothesis this result is interesting, because the result is not completely off. It means that, within a certain period at least, the complexity of life does follow this exponential rule. Clearly, the formula needs to be tuned (based on evidence, not on open-mouth extraterrestrial finger-pointing), but it's a great start. I would venture that a more detailed genetic analysis of relatively recent organisms might result in a curve that is much more accurate. Assuming something will always double within a certain interval is not detailed enough as a model for this.

leot 14y ago
What's so tiresome about panspermia?
- Udo 14y ago
  There is usually not a lot of actual science involved. The motivations for presenting panspermia papers are in most cases philosophical in nature and it shows. This paper, too, implies that's what happened even though the accuracy of the model is highly dubious for a number of reasons. Compare that to when Hubble first attempted to calculate the age of the universe by measuring the history of its expansion. It was quite a similar method: simply roll the equation back in time to where the universe's size was zero. He got a result that was lower than the geologically known age of the Earth, in fact we now know he was off by a factor of ten! Refreshingly, people didn't jump to conclusions though and in time everything fell into place. Hubble had fallen victim to a systematic measuring error. We are also now pretty certain that the expansion of the universe was not always linear. Hubble's method is still valid and impressive, but the tools and models needed to be refined. It's easy to see that the same applies to this finding.

jliechti1 14y ago

I liked this comment on the article. This is the kind of feeling I had while reading it: "Lets take 5 data points and project backwards 3x the range of the observed data. Science! Regression!! There's no way this could be wrong, right?"

rflrob 14y ago

Extrapolating back to when the genome size was 1 probably doesn't make sense, but what this approach might be able to do is suggest the smallest functional genome size, about 10,000bp based on my reading of the graph. It's also worth pointing out that we don't, in general, have a way to know what portions of the genome are truly functional, nor even a really great definition of functional (the ENCODE consortium caught a lot of flak for theirs as overly broad). Also, almost all the genome sizes we know are from the modern day: bacteria as a class may be 3 billion years old, but they've been evolving over those 3 billion years too!

original_guy98 14y ago

As always, sort of relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/605/ http://xkcd.com/605/

zeteo 14y ago

I think the problem here is that we don't have the original prokaryote genome. Today's prokaryotes have gone through billions of years of evolution and might well have longer genomes than their distant ancestors. So the leftmost points on the graph might have shifted up over time (albeit more slowly than the rightmost).

efnx 14y ago
Also - it depends on what you define life as, which as far as I know is an ongoing argument. What about RNA+protein life before DNA?
mbq 14y ago
Way worse. Evolution is not about gaining complexity but about fitting to (current state of) the environment; in this manner, Procaryota are actually the most "evolved" form of life since they can rapidly adapt thanks to their short life cycle and uncluttered physiology. And this can be easily seen in genetic diversity -- the whole spread of animals or plants is almost negligible in comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_1500px_coloured.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_1500px_colour...). Another good example is the fact that practically all procaryotic germs are highly specific, so must have evolved after their host species did.
- writtles 14y ago
  > Evolution is not about gaining complexity but about fitting to (current state of) the environment I'm glad you cleared that up. Here I was thinking evolution and its "goal" is still a mystery to science.

6ren 14y ago

Those complaining about extrapolation may like to read the paper, rather than the article... https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.3381v1 https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304... There's discussion of measuring DNA complexity; issues in extrapolation (there's evidence suggesting recent increases are hyperexponential, which would push back the origin of life even further); section 8 notes function complexity has increased much faster with the "mind" (as in what birds and mammals have) which is not reflected in DNA complexity (chimp-human encephalization rate is x100 faster). I love the fresh perspective of not tying the origin of life to the origin of earth - nice and non-geocentric!

sageikosa 14y ago
The rise of life doesn't have to be a universally unique event. It can easily rise in isolation on Earth, and in numerous other places that obey the laws of organic chemistry.

ignostic 14y ago

You know something is wrong when the complex and evolutionary trees of "mammals" and "eukaryotes" are single points on a graph. If the geekbait Moore's Law didn't tip you off, the paper is garbage.

taltman1 14y ago

Notice how they cherry-pick among genomes to get their fitted line. A common fallacy is to associate genome size with the "complexity" of an organism. Even assuming that there is a simplistic linear ordering of organismal life (i.e., "lower" and "higher" organisms), a "lower" organism like the poplar tree has more than two times the number of genes as the human genome.

shawkinaw 14y ago
Had the same thought. There are also multiple problems with using the "functional, non-redundant" part of the genome, which presumably means the exons.
sageikosa 14y ago
You mean to tell me evolution isn't about "progress"? ;-)
- writtles 14y ago
  But there has to be some characteristic that certain species required many evolutionary "steps" to get to. For example, there were no humans OR poplars one billion years ago nor the possibility yet since their / our ancestors hadn't yet made the scene.

api 14y ago

I've suspected for a long time that the idea that life originated on Earth is the last geocentrism.

surrealize 14y ago

Ach, this is terrible. Genome size is influenced by a number of factors, including: - Generation length (faster-reproducing organisms tend to have smaller genomes) - Transposons (sections of DNA that use cellular machinery to copy themselves to multiple places in the genome; they're usually viruses that got incorporated into the host germline some time in the past) Genome size isn't anything like a direct measure of "complexity" or "development"; some plants have genome sizes that are orders of magnitude larger than the human genome. The worst part is that they take genome size sampled in the present day across multiple organisms, and then they assume that some of those present-day genomes represent genomes from particular points in the past. So the x-axis in the regression is basically a guess. I'm not a statistician, but I imagine that fitting an exponential distribution can make the x-intercept sensitive to data errors.

kragen 14y ago
> Genome size isn't anything like a direct measure of "complexity" or "development"; some plants have genome sizes that are orders of magnitude larger than the human genome. What makes you think those plants aren't more genetically complex and developed than we are? A lot of our complexity is non-genetic. > I'm not a statistician, but I imagine that fitting an exponential distribution can make the x-intercept sensitive to data errors. You mean exponential growth, not an exponential distribution, and exponential growth never hits the x-axis.
- dekhn 14y ago
  Regarding the first point: those plants and lungfish etc with massive genomes aren't more phenotypically more complex. They just contain more duplication. If anything, it's likely a slight impediment to reproduction, but not enough to get selected against.
  - kragen 14y ago
    I'm not sure about this. Plants synthesize a whole lot of biochemicals no animal does, for example, including a lot of amino acids. They can't run away from insect parasites or swat them with their tails, so they have to be able to poison them — without killing the plant or, say, the birds that spread their seeds. There's a lot more phenotypic complexity in corn than you can see without a chemistry lab, probably including things we haven't discovered yet. Do you work in botanical bioinformatics, or are you just guessing?

rouli 14y ago

This is fun! I took the boys average weight data given in [1] months from conception, average weight (kilos) (9, 3.25) (15, 7.5) (21, 9.97) (33, 12.88) (45, 14.97) (69, 18.97) and saw that it really looks like a logarithmic function. So, fitted y to log(x), got y~7.4685*log(x)-13, with R^2=0.9965 (thank you R!). Extrapolated back, and found that at conception, the fetus weighs -inf kilos. Not surprising result, I must say. However, I was surprised to find that only after five months of gestation, the embryo reaches the critical mass of 0 kilos. Science! [1] http://www.buzzle.com/articles/average-weight-for-children-by-age.html http://www.buzzle.com/articles/average-weight-for-children-b...

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

civilian 14y ago

Their measure of complexity is Genome size. That's a very simple measure of complexity. Just a dumb example-- humans have a single gene for a protein in muscles. But that single genes has multiple exons and depending on whether it's being produced in heart, usual muscles, or soft-tissue muscle it's transcribed differently. Most of the protein is re-used, but a couple of parts are swapped out. So we have genetic code being used in three different proteins. Our genome is being efficient in size, yet it's increasing in complexity. That being said, I have no idea how to measure complexity well.

guard-of-terra 14y ago

They try to put organism's compexity on a logarithmic scale and look where this line "reaches zero". Then they find out it was very very long ago, before the Earth coalesced. They then proceed to imply that life is older than Earth. The problem here is: you can't do that. For example, if you look at human population, it was growing kind of exponentially for as long as we know. And if we continue this trend long enough to the past we'll infer that Earth featured several dozens of humans even when it was still in a liquid magmatic state five billion years ago! Exponential growth becomes glacially slow when we go back in time. Therefore, any growth seems to be not exp(t) but rather max(ct, exp(t)) - not slower than linear. It doesn't matter once we hit present history, but it does matter when we talk about a linear part in the past.

la-conic 14y ago

For all the nay sayer's most of your objections are actually addressed in the original article. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.3381v1 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.3381v1 A quote from the end of the abstract: Can we take these estimates as an approximate age of life in the universe? Answering this question is not easy because several other problems have to be addressed. First, why the increase of genome complexity follows an exponential law instead of fluctuating erratically? Second, is it reasonable to expect that biological evolution had started from something equivalent in complexity to one nucleotide? And third, if life is older than the Earth and the Solar System, then how can organisms survive interstellar or even intergalactic transfer? These problems as well as consequences of the exponential increase of genome complexity are discussed below.

losethos 14y ago

I don't like Moore's Law -- it's retarded and loved by retards. God says... ---- 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. 4:14 And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. 4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 4:17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, 4:18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: 4:19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. ---- God is a genius. Only geniuses can love God. God's covenant is that you do an offering before consulting Him. Picking a greeting card is love. Put-forth love toward God before consulting Him. God said "honest measures" meaning you get out of prayer what you put into it. ---- Moore's law is like saying a band will have 2 hits because they've had 2 hits each year in the past 4 years. Any sane person say "huh? But bands can't usually be original indefinitely! They are lots of one-hit-wonders and only a few two-hit wonders and almost no 4 hit wonders!" ---- God says... rain, and because of the cold. 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. 28:4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. 28:5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm. 28:6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god. 28:7 In the same quarters were possessions of the chief man of the island, whose name was Publius; who received us, and lodged us three days courteously. ---- Beattles? Nah not Beattles. Led Zeppelin 4 Houses of the Holy ---- God says... virtue journey wonderfulness signified faithfully blessest merged requitest sensibly Sweden sovereign window Forgive rightful according animals flowing running ground presumption envying vintage repeat_after_me morrow astounding Viewing straitly listen_buddy Africa devilish sufficeth feedeth Print Wilt fluctuating healing don't_count_on_it in_other_words interrupt performing self-contradicting pant viciousness entrance floods freely clothed temporary silversmiths birds mimic groaned fixedly imparts file disguising manors thereof uncultivated filthy assigned throughout bosses Infinite fruit-bowers Forum Mother shist instances Bishop explained dryness ambitious grave's re-collect tax resigned forming would victory Seeing So readers' Therefore I'm_gonna_smack_someone do_over defining illogical Subverters immortality ---- Popehat had story of $1.44 postage due. God says... whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places. 13:34 And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth. 14:1 At that time Abijah the son of Jeroboam fell sick. 14:2 And Jeroboam said to his wife, Arise, I pray thee, and disguise thyself, that thou be not known to be the wife of Jeroboam; and get thee to Shiloh: behold, there is Ahijah the prophet, which told me that I should be king over this people. 14:3 And take with thee ten loaves, and cracknels, and a cruse of honey, and go to him: he shall tell thee what shall become of the child. 14:4 And Jeroboam's wife did so, and arose, and went to Shiloh, and came to the house of Ahijah. But Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set by reason of his age. ---- Dijon Mustard? It's actually cheap, but Grey Popon made it special? God says... suffered plausibility troubled cover tongue-science pursuing penetrating staff zoot hearer architect Rwanda decided man own letters variance sores discretion dear Joseph numberless mightier needy merrily applauses what_a_mess shunning pattern forgetting ornamentedst Wordly maintain = statement student Those Latin ken stanza great fluctuates strange destroying lure OR sharper case disregard service precedest angel deem listing Taiwan fulness afterwards self-contradicting fiercest teaches heed Goal flagitiousness lowlily here_now pardon_the_french nourished preached not_too_shabby mercy raising Accept Epaphroditus vicissitudes Angel mainly drinking fairly Comforter accounted desirous astonished mansion eluding redeem musing whit mockeries fit runs locusts vices reform ha reports petty miracles again gallantry meets heareth burstest afraid alterations choleric shady doh how the_enquirer consumed subtile embittered dried six omnipotency absurdly bring lifted breast unchain Writ explain defended seeks codes repeating ---- "Thou shall not litter." is the eleventh commandment, said God. God says... to Hiram year by year. 5:12 And the LORD gave Solomon wisdom, as he promised him: and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and they two made a league together. 5:13 And king Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men. 5:14 And he sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses: a month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home: and Adoniram was over the levy. 5:15 And Solomon had threescore and ten thousand that bare burdens, and fourscore thousand hewers in the mountains; 5:16 Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work. 5:17 And the king commanded, and they brought great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones, to lay the foundation of the house. ---- I can't believe the A20 compatibility work-around still exists. Somebody cared that much. Hi-RAM. I don't have that much respect for law and sometimes Jesus impresses me with humility before the law. HiRAM reminds me of humility before the law. Not fighting on the Sabbath is humility before the law. I'm not alone in scoffing... but sometimes I have doubts and respect that humility. God says... hovered belongs fain athirst rose_colored_glasses intelligence transformed corruption bare shakes basket_case funding Or contradiction tradition factito Good commands umm_what_now vanished AUGUSTINE emptinesses necessities burned force general hide up I_love_this shunning Bible Preacher Shakespeare hereon Wales hart drenched covetous Glad bare fervently chooses marts Guinea commandments unconscious ghosts compact equably sees The lure whenever Tunisia striking gainsayers deride racked father corners touch weaknesses My drinking Justina swelled progress acknowledged flour Simplicianus willedst silly_human audience Sometimes humility stories business breathedst mistresses special_case restraining whitherward Hicc_up farther feedeth Enter interior enlightened sinks why_didn'_you_tell_me vital Answer deferred enact disapproved Envy thwart sanctity poesy recourse abide rigidly Whereupon but_of_course compactedst per lo mutable benediction read lightened steer quoth unadorned talk_to_my_lawyer neighbour works laden judgment lathe wheel stick mockery circumlocutions openest qualities Guyana joyously draw government locking while Lord's impressing oppressed vain-glory bestowedst conferring sometime calculated mourned stablished foresignified dreadful seeing surmounted declare cheered Men kindness flagitiousnesses Epistles cowardice covenant Placed ice_cream 'it hypocrite four senseless toss ---- What do bears do, that You like to watch, God? You like fishing? You like fuzzy-wuzzy? God says... 15:27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. 15:28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: 15:30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. ---- You like it when bears have two cubs... and have relationship things. "Devoured" is a key word. You loved Jacob and hated Esau. You like parents giving to children? Bears are good parents. God says... unsuitably perverse revealing net journey Nay styled prevented dispersed haphazard Donations teeth furnishing turmoils Writ childbearing big_fish born it unwilling useth gatherest It what's_up comment scholars unmeasured close as_a_matter_of_fact delivered conceiving subjected

dEnigma 14y ago

There is a lot wrong with this approach, but even if you agree with their method there is one thing that seems odd in their analysis. Let's suppose that life originated before the birth of the earth. Obviously it managed to reach earth, which would mean it (the organism) had to travel through space for an extended period of time - the authors claim that it was frozen - so you should account for that time in the graph, and obviously life couldn't settle on earth for quite some time because in the beginning our planet was extremely hot and unsuitable for any kind of life. That would shift their postulated origin of life further into the past, most likely to a point where there wasn't even a universe to begin with, or at least no planets that would allow for the formation of life. [Note: I didn't read the whole paper, maybe they discussed these points. Also please correct me if I'm wrong on anything]