INFORMATION THEORY AND EVOLUTION (2ND EDITION)

PERSONAL CURIOSITYWhile I am challenged since some time by the divers views of physics and biology (and other disciplines) about the phenomenon of life I started a more intense re-reading of the 'classical' texts to this topic (like Claude E. Shannon; Warren Weaver 'The mathematical theory of communication'. 1948. Enrico Fermi 'thermodynamics'. 1937; Erwin Schrödinger 'What is Life' (1944), 'Mind an Matter'(1958) and others). But the problem with this topic is, that since these 'old days' the development was very intense and is extending in many different fields, which makes it difficult to catch up with all these different views and findings. In this context I detected the book from Avery 'Information Theory and Evolution'.PROVIDING A FRAMEWORKWhat is amazing about the book of Avery is the depth and breadth of the cited literature and the consulted disciplines. For someone, who has read a bit within these fields there are repetitions of known positions, but nevertheless the book provides helpful summaries and overviews of the main positions and mostly together with a good historical account. Thus chapters 1-2 give you a first setting about the development and main positions of evolutionary thought until Charles Darwin and in chapter 3 you can read an outline of the the modern development which is mainly rooted in molecular biology. Chapter 5 continues with the information flow based on molecules, between cells, neural networks and animal languages leading (chapter 6) to the evolution of language and culture within human populations. This culminates in the recent development of the computers, the internet (chapter 7) and a mutual influence between information theory and biology (chapter 8) which drives the development of bio-inspired technology (neural networks, genetic algorithms, artificial life, nano-science). The short chapter 4 about statistical mechanics and information seems not to fit really in this line of thought (see below); the appendix A (entropy and information) does not improve this weakness). In the final chapter 9 Avery points out how the different velocities of change (genetically, culturally, technologically) ) induce instabilities and tensions which have to be mastered in he future if they should not cause a destruction of humanity and eventually even the whole biosphere. Although Avery can not provide a complete ethical theory in his booklet one gets at least strong hints how one should re-think questions of 'norms' guiding human societies. Appendix B about biosemiotics is extremely short, but at least it gives a 'hint' to a possible --and necessary?-- point of view which is completely different to the view of physics and molecular biology to explain the phenomenon of human culture.LIMITS AND STARTING POINTAs one can imagine does the combination of depth and broadness in several disciplines combined with a limited number of pages (200) urge an author to abbreviate all ideas remarkably, producing rough and simplified views. Thus if one expects from this book complete and 'deep' answers he will be disappointed. But if you are interested in an overview about main positions, rough historical outlines to get a first idea of the possible frame of reference for these questions from a multidisciplinary point of view with a good selection of important publications then this is a very good book to start with.NO ANSWERSAs I mentioned above appears the chapter 4 about 'statistical mechanics and information' not to fit well in this framework. Assuming only the mathematical equations the alignment of the concept of 'entropy' from statistical mechanics with 'entropy' from information theory (Shannon) this seems to be sound. But mathematical formulas 'as such' have no meaning. To support formulas with 'meaning' one has to apply some domain different from these formulas which can be used for an 'interpretation'. If one uses e.g. as a 'domain' the formal concept of a 'space of possible states' (interpretable as states of atoms or molecules in the case of mechanics and as states of signs in information theory) then a mapping can be established which induces a purely formal equivalence between the different 'entropy'-concepts although the 'real' domains are completely different. As far as the 'formal structure' of information states and states of atoms are not distinguishable this can work. In the concrete case of 'real' information as part of biological and then human communication one has to doubt whether this is so simple. Because the topic is rather complex I can give here only a few remarks.A FEW REMARKS(1) From the many unsolved questions is one basic question, why we have an allocation of energy at all. That there is 'free energy' available from the sun (and elsewhere) does no explain, that we can observe the allocation of energy at some point in the universe. We know, that matter (molecules, atoms, subatomic particles...) has specific 'properties' which are 'causing' parts of the matter to 'interact' in a 'specific' way. To state general laws about general tendencies to 'dissolve' those structures into an 'equilibrium' does not explain why we have the allocation-fact prior to this 'dissolving-tendency'. (2) To equate the statistical-mechanics entropy with the information-theoretical entropy has the problem that Shannon himself deliberately did only describe the 'signal part' of communication. This is that aspect of communication where some 'cognitive concept' will be encoded in some 'material structure' which can be sent through a 'communication channel' for transmission. The signal as such has no 'meaning'. Thus statistical properties of such a signal can be of importance for the engineers of communication channels but they have no relevance for the 'cognitive meaning'. Avery mentions Biosemiotics in an appendix but does not exploit the point of view of biosemiotics for his treatment of information theory and evolution. The 'sign' according to Peirce (and other semioticians) is a 'relation' between a 'sign vehicle' (written signs, spoken words,....) and a 'sign object' (something perceivable or even only imaginable) where the relations exists only (!) in a 'cognitive association within the sign user' (independent from the fact whether the sign user is a biological or a technical system). Thus the meaning-enabling relation is no object of the material world outside of the system and is in a certain sense independent of the concrete matter and the amount of energy to be used. (3) As Avery shows nicely 'complex' forms of life start beyond the single cell as 'multicellular' structures. This presupposes that the individual cells do 'coordinate' sufficiently. This can be realized as a 'fixed' structure' or --in the more advanced biological systems-- as a dynamic ensemble with a continuous flow of 'information' which can change existing structures and which can even change the kind of information as such. From a semiotic point of view it is possible to distinguish even on the genetic level those structures which 'function' as sign-vehicles (mRNA), those which function as 'interpreter' (those structures which convert mRNA into other structures) and those which function as 'sign-objects' (those structures which will be produced by the interpreter). While the sign-processes on the genetic level are rather 'hard-coded' (but not inflexible) appear these processes within complex systems (like a brain connected to a body) in case of symbolic languages completely independent from certain material structures. That these structures are consuming energy to be able to work explains nearly nothing of the phenomena under investigation.I am a bit puzzled about the fact that Avery does not discuss this topic more deeply although he himself gives such a nice general view of the incredible development of communication structures from the molecular level to the most complex cultural forms.

Clearly, as we see by the last two reviewer's comments, a lack of education leads to confusion. Not that the "thermodynamics of life" isn't a confusing subject, but rather there exists no full textbook on the subject. For those interested, last week, I wrote up a quick review of thermodynamic evolution:[...]Quickly, let me point out a few things about the last reviewer's comments:(1) Avery's book is a magnificent piece of intellectual crystal.(2) Avery is a Nobel Prize Winner, and has degrees in BS physics (MIT), MS physics (Univ. of Chicago), PhD theoretical chemistry (Imperial College, London).(3) Avery clearly makes a connection in this book between Gibbs free energy, being the total amount of energy available to do useful work in a reacting system, and Life. Well done Avery!(4) Whenever a person does "work" it is owing to the electromagnetic fluxed through the earth system; a portion of this energy goes to "evolutionary" work [G], a portion goes to waste and friction [S].(5) It is standard protocol when writing to break up your thoughts into paragraphs (note to last reviewer).(6) Anyone who cites Dembski or Lambert as a source is a clearly missing the point.Always remember, everything you see around you on earth is made from only three things: nuclei, electrons, and photons. If, at any time, you find someone trying to confuse you with "fancy" talk of information, bits, demons, entropy, etc., remember....its all nuclei-electron-photon interactions, as denied via QED; it's that simple - photon input causes things, i.e. molecular structures, to move or evolve.Adios: Libb Thims,BS Chemical Engineering, BS Electrical Engineering, Human Thermodynamicist, AuthorPhD Biochemistry - MD Neuroscience (in progress)

Avery's book is a excellent start - concentrating on clear technical writing. As a mathematician and physicist interested in the field and needing a primer in molecular biology (which I knew nothing about), I found the book excellent. The bibliographies are a goldmine and the text puts the references in context well, so this book is an excellent way into the difficult and bewildering field of molecular biology, genetics and so forth. Another reviewer makes the point that some of the analogies in the book may not be altogether complete, but so what? I don't think Avery (the author) would claim the analogies to be isomorphisms (i.e. exact correspondences)!. Where would science be without analogies?

I would recommend this book, but not at the retail price. The content was good, but fairly disparate: very little of the text is focused on the intersection between information theory and evolution. The main thesis is not expanded much from the blurb. There are typographical errors on nearly every page. However, each section is individually well-written, and the content is never boring.