Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 223–250 | Cite as

Entropy increase and information loss in Markov models of evolution



Markov models of evolution describe changes in the probability distribution of the trait values a population might exhibit. In consequence, they also describe how entropy and conditional entropy values evolve, and how the mutual information that characterizes the relation between an earlier and a later moment in a lineage’s history depends on how much time separates them. These models therefore provide an interesting perspective on questions that usually are considered in the foundations of physics—when and why does entropy increase and at what rates do changes in entropy take place? They also throw light on an important epistemological question: are there limits on what your observations of the present can tell you about the evolutionary past?


Entropy Evolution Markov model Mutual information 



We thank the editor and referee for useful suggestions. ES thanks the William F. Vilas Trust of the University of Wisconsin-Madison for financial support and MS thanks the Royal Society of New Zealand for funding under its James Cook Fellowship scheme.


  1. Barrett M, Sober E (1994) The second law of probability dynamics. Br J Philos Sci 45:941–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett M, Sober E (1995) When and why does entropy increase? In: Savitt S (ed) Time’s arrow today. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 230–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger JO (1985) Statistical decision theory and Bayesian analysis, 2nd edn. Springer Series in Statistics, Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooks D, Wiley E (1988) Evolution as entropy. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang J (1996) Inconsistency of evolutionary tree topology reconstruction methods when substitution rates vary across characters. Math Biosci 134:189–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cover TM, Thomas JA (1991) Elements of information theory. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crow J, Kimura M (1970) An introduction to population genetics theory. Burgess Publishing Company, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  8. Durrett R (2002) Probability models for DNA sequence evolution. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans W, Kenyon C, Peres Y, Schulman LJ (2000) Broadcasting on trees and the Ising model. Adv Appl Probab 10:403–433Google Scholar
  10. Felsenstein J (2004) Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer M, Thatte B (2009) Maximum parsimony on subsets of taxa. J Theor Biol 260:290–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grimmett G, Stirzaker D (2001) Probability and random processes, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Häggström O (2002) Finite Markov chains and algorithmic applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kemeny JG, Snell JL (1976) Finite Markov chains. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Mossel E (1998) Recursive reconstruction on periodic trees. Random Struct Algorithm 13(1):81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mossel E (2003) On the impossibility of reconstructing ancestral data and phylogenies. J Comput Biol 10:669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mossel E, Steel M (2005) How much can evolved characters tell us about the tree that generated them? In: Gascuel O (ed) Mathematics of evolution and phylogeny. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 384–412Google Scholar
  18. Pinelis I (2003) Evolutionary models of phylogenetic trees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270(1522):1425–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rozanov YA (1969) Probability theory: a concise course. Dover Publications Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Semple C, Steel M (2003) Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Seneta E (1973) Non-negative matrices: an introduction to theory and applications. Wiley, New York, pp 52–54Google Scholar
  22. Sober E (1989) Independent evidence about a common cause. Philos Sci 56:275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sober E (2008) Evidence and evolution: the logic behind the science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. Sober E, Barrett M (1992) Conjunctive forks and temporally asymmetric inference. Aust J Philos 70:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sober E, Steel M (2002) Testing the hypothesis of common ancestry. J Theor Biol 218:395–408Google Scholar
  26. Tuffley C, Steel MA (1997a) Links between maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony under a simple model of site substitution. Bull Math Biol 59(3):581–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tuffley C, Steel MA (1997b) Modeling the covarion hypothesis of nucleotide substitution. Math Biosci 147:63–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weber B, Depew D (1988) Entropy, information, and evolution: new perspectives on physical and biological evolution. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Yockey H (2005) Information theory, evolution, and the origin of life. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Biomathematics Research CentreUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations