Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:38:28.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Time and Knowability in Evolutionary Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Elliott Sober  and
Mike Steel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historical sciences like evolutionary biology reconstruct past events by using the traces that the past has bequeathed to the present. Markov chain theory entails that the passage of time reduces the amount of information that the present provides about the past. Here we use a Moran process framework to show that some evolutionary processes destroy information faster than others. Our results connect with Darwin’s principle that adaptive similarities provide scant evidence of common ancestry whereas neutral and deleterious similarities do better. We also describe how the branching in phylogenetic trees affects the information that the present supplies about the past.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 558 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

Elliott Sober presented this paper in 2012 at the University of Bordeaux, the London School of Economics, and the Institute for Mathematical Philosophy at the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, and received valuable comments. We are grateful for these and also to Elchanan Mossel for helpful comments. Elliott Sober thanks the William F. Vilas Trust of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and Mike Steel thanks the Allan Wilson Centre (New Zealand).

References

Cover, Thomas M., and Thomas, Joy A.. 2006. Elements of Information Theory. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles R. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: Murray.Google Scholar
Evans, William, Kenyon, Claire, Peres, Yuval, and Schulman, Leonard J.. 2000. “Broadcasting on Trees and the Ising Model.” Advances in Applied Probability 10:410–33.Google Scholar
Ewens, Warren J. 2010. Mathematical Population Genetics. Vol. 1, Theoretical Introduction. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Frieden, B. Roy, Plastino, Angelo, and Soffer, B. H.. 2001. “Population Genetics from an Information Perspective.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 208 (1): 49–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gascuel, Olivier, and Steel, Mike. 2014. “Predicting the Ancestral Character Changes in a Tree Is Typically Easier than Predicting the Root State.” Systematic Biology 63 (3): 421–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1965. The Logic of Statistical Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häggström, Olle. 2002. Finite Markov Chains and Algorithmic Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Weini, and Traulsen, Arne. 2010. “Fixation Probabilities of Random Mutants under Frequency Dependent Selection.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 263 (2): 262–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keynes, John Maynard. 1924. A Tract on Monetary Reform. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Laplace, Pierre-Simon. 1814. A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. Trans. from the French 6th ed. by Truscott, F. and Emory, F.. New York: Dover, 1951.Google Scholar
Moran, Patrick. 1962. The Statistical Processes of Evolutionary Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mossel, Elchanan. 1998. “Recursive Reconstruction on Periodic Trees.” Random Structures and Algorithms 13 (1): 81–97.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossel, Elchanan 2001. “Reconstruction on Trees: Beating the Second Eigenvalue.” Annals of Applied Probability 11:285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossel, Elchanan 2003. “On the Impossibility of Reconstructing Ancestral Data and Phylogenies.” Journal of Computational Biology 10:669–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royall, Richard. 1997. Statistical Evidence—a Likelihood Paradigm. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Salichos, Leonidas, and Rokas, Antonis. 2013. “Inferring Ancient Divergences Requires Genes with Strong Phylogenetic Signals.” Nature 497:327–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sly, Allan. 2011. “Reconstruction for the Potts Model.” Annals of Probability 39:1365–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1989. “Independent Evidence about a Common Cause.” Philosophy of Science 56:275–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott 2008. Evidence and Evolution: The Logic behind the Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott 2011a. “A Priori Causal Models of Natural Selection.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89:571–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott 2011b. Did Darwin Write the Origin Backwards? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott, and Steel, Mike. 2011. “Entropy Increase and Information Loss in Markov Models of Evolution.” Biology and Philosophy 26:223–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar