"Tim Tyler"  wrote in message
news:cfo81g$88m$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> I observe that there are some simple factual errors in:
>
> ''The Information Challenge''
> http://tinyurl.com/4eqbh
>
> This bit:
>
> ``Mutation is not an increase in true information content, rather the
>   reverse, for mutation, in the Shannon analogy, contributes to increasing
>   the prior uncertainty.''
>
> ...is not correct.  Mutation typically *increases* the information in the
> genome, by increasing its suprise value.
>
> Similarly this bit:
>
> ``natural selection is by definition a process whereby information is fed
>   into the gene pool of the next generation.''
>
> ...is also not correct - natural selection usually /eliminates/ variation,
> and thus /destroys/ information.
>
> ``But now we come to natural selection, which reduces the "prior
>   uncertainty" and therefore, in Shannon's sense, contributes
>   information to the gene pool.''
>
> ...and...
>
> ``natural selection feeds information into gene pools''
>
> ...are also not correct - for the same reason: natural
> selection usually eliminates information from gene pools -
> by destroying individuals that carry it.
>
> This area is critical point in the essay.  Dawkins apparently gives
> completely the wrong answer to the question his essay is addressing.
>
> Dawkins stated position appears to be not remotely defensible -
> it is completely mistaken - he totally reverses the roles of
> mutation and natural selection, as far as their effect on
> information content of genomes is concerned.
>
> It appears that St Richard is fallible after all ;-)

Dawkins understands information theory as well as, or better than,
you do.  His mistake, if there is a mistake, is one of exposition.
You have failed to understand that he is using "information content
of the genome" in a sense exactly opposite to you.  And the word
that is causing the problem is not "information", but rather
"genome".

Naively take the information content of an individual's DNA as
2N bits, where N is the number of base pairs.  Divide this information
into two components:
A. The information about the individual DNA sequence that we know
    simply by knowing the species of the individual.
B. The additional information that is gained by looking at the
    individual DNA sequence itself.

A + B = 2N

I am pretty sure that Dawkins is talking about the information content
of component A, whereas you are talking about component B.  NS shifts
"ownership" of information from B to A - thus increasing information
in his sense, while decreasing it in yours.  Mutation (in some sense)
shifts information in the opposite direction.

Since it is the species that evolves - not the individual - I believe
that Dawkins' viewpoint is quite defensible.  Which is not to say that
your viewpoint is wrong.  However, it may be inappropriate to this
question.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/16/04 1:26:05 PM