Last post by Dave Hawkins -
Keep reading ... this is great stuff ...
1. The genome is a formatted data storage system for living cells
1.1. The complexity of cell reproduction and the magnitude of the data storage and data access challenges It is essential for scientists to keep in mind the astonishing reliability and complexity of living cells. Even the smallest cells contain millions of different molecules combined into an integrated set of densely packed and continuously changing macromolecular structures. Depending upon the energy source and other circumstances, these indescribably
complex entities can reproduce themselves with great reliability at times as short as 10-20 minutes. Each reproductive cell cycle involves literally hundreds of millions of biochemical and biomechanical events. We must recognize that cells possess a cybernetic capacity beyond our ability to imitate. Therefore, it should not surprise us when we discover extremely dense and interconnected control architectures at all levels. Simplifying assumptions about cell informatics
can be more misleading than helpful in understanding the basic principles of biological function.
Two dangerous oversimplifications have been (i) to consider the genome as a mere physical carrier of hypothetical
units called "genes" that determine particular cell or organismal traits, and (ii) to think of the genome as a digitally
encoded Read-Only Turing tape that feeds instructions to the rest of the cell about individual characters .
Last post by Dave Hawkins -
It's quite obvious to me that Ben has not even bothered to read Shapiro ... because to anyone who HAS read his stuff about the R/W genome and NGE and such it is obvious that what Ben says above is just flat wrong. Shapiro does indeed make a clear distinction between "random / accident" and "cell directed change." Here's one that says it clearly right in the damn abstract ... you don't even have to get into the paper at all ...Sigh.But he most definitely makes a clear distinction between types of mutations... Random versus non-random. Error versus non error.He most definitely does not. He talks about processes that work to prevent mutations and processes that work to produce them, but he does not refer strictly to the mutations that escape the prevention processes as "errors" and the mutations that arise from other processes as "non errors." Remember, he specifically describes NHEJ as an "error-prone process" and yet talks about it as an important source of variation. He does not make the distinction you think he does.
Yes he does.
I will dig them up again in the morning.
The genome has traditionally been treated as a Read-Only Memory (ROM) subject to change by copying errors and accidents. In this review, I propose that we need to change that perspective and understand the genome as an intricately formatted Read-Write (RW) data storage system constantly subject to cellular modifications and inscriptions. Cells operate under changing conditions and are continually modifying themselves by genome inscriptions. These inscriptions occur over three distinct time-scales (cell reproduction, multicellular development and evolutionary change) and involve a variety of different processes at each time scale (forming nucleoprotein complexes, epigenetic formatting and changes in DNA sequence structure). Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.
More innovative ideas from the Republicans:
The new Spork.
As an important sidenote, almost all the genes of modern humans are the same as Neanderthals. Not just the 1-5% that is often mentioned.Could it be that there is more than one way to express similarity as a percentage?
https://www.livescience.com/1122-neanderthal-99-5-percent-human.htmlQuoteThe results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal's humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases.http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267388
"This is a drop in the bucket if you consider that the human genome is 3 billion bases," said Edward Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who led one of the research teams.QuoteThe genome sequence of Neanderthal shows that humans' and Neanderthals' genomes are 99.5 percent identical.
It took four years for the researchers to sequence 3.7 billion base pairs in the Neanderthal genome, out of which they have read only about 60 percent of the genes.
Initial analysis shows that humans and Neanderthal share the same version of a "language gene" called FOXP2 according to team leader Svante Pääbo from Max Planck Institute. This gene helps develop the language skills in the species implying that Neanderthal could talk as well as humans.
Politics and Current Events / Re: The Trump Kompromat Fact: Whereby we discuss the realness of the piss tapeLast post by Testy Calibrate -
President Trump has stepped up his attacks on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation in recent days, and his lawyer even suggested that the inquiry should be shut down. And just in case the direction in which this whole thing is headed wasn't clear, Trump has now hired a lawyer who argues the president is being framed.it continues
Trump's legal team on Monday announced the hiring of Joseph E. diGenova, a former U.S. attorney who served as an independent counsel and a special counsel in the 1990s and was later hired by the New York Senate to investigate Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D). The hiring was first reported by the New York Times.
DiGenova clearly has experience, but what may make him most attractive to Trump is his thoughts on this particular case. He told Fox News Channel in January that the investigation is "a brazen plot to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton and, if she didn't win the election, to then frame Donald Trump with a falsely created crime."
"Make no mistake about it: A group of FBI and DOJ people were trying to frame Donald Trump of a falsely created crime," diGenova said.
That interview was the most notable in a series of TV appearances that seem, in a way, to have been auditions for joining Trump's legal team. We know that Trump seems to like hiring people who say things he likes on cable TV, and diGenova has supplied no shortage of that. Much of diGenova's commentary has described a vast law-enforcement conspiracy to take down Trump.
Here's a sampling:
Feb. 2: 'The largest law enforcement scandal in history'
"We are headed toward a very sad ending for the FBI and senior DOJ officials. ... I believe that several high FBI officials will be charged criminally. And it is conceivable that some DOJ people will also be charged criminally. ... I would consider this the largest law enforcement scandal in history for this reason. The activities of McCabe and others and Bruce Ohr and others were designed to subvert the Constitution and a national election, the most serious offense under our Constitution." ("Hannity")
March 15: Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe should be fired ...
"He's done a number of things worth punishment, including careening through obstruction of justice from the beginning of the Trump campaign, doing everything he could to exonerate Hillary Clinton in the email server case corruptly. ... He should be fired. He should have been fired a long time ago. And if he loses some of his benefits, that's good for the country. And it's the least that can be done to him." ("Tucker Carlson Tonight")
... and the people involved should be arrested
"It means that the system of equal justice has been rent asunder by the conduct of James Comey, America's best-known dirty cop, Andrew McCabe and others, including senior Obama administration Justice Department officials. This is a moment in history that has sullied the reputation of the FBI and the Department of Justice, and deservedly so. Every one of these people should be put in a wanted poster at a post office, even though they may never be arrested." ("Tucker Carlson Tonight")
Dec. 4: The raid at Paul Manafort's home was a 'disgusting display'
"Or show up at your house in the morning while you and your wife were in bed in order to frighten you like they did with Mr. Manafort. What a disgusting, awful display of raw political power. Not law enforcement power, political power." ("Tucker Carlson Tonight")
March 7: A federal grand jury should investigate the investigators
"This is why, Lou, the only way to get these answers, once the Nunes committee is done, is to have a federal grand jury force all of these State Department people, CIA, DNI people, FBI, DOJ senior people under oath in a grand jury. It's the only way we're ever going to get the full story. ... This is the single most important scandal of the last 50 years because senior DOJ and FBI officials engaged in conduct that was designed to corrupt an American presidential election. It wasn't the Russians who corrupted the presidential election; it was the American officials at the Department of Justice and the FBI." ("Lou Dobbs Tonight")
Jan. 20: Loretta E. Lynch and Sally Yates broke the law
"We're going to discover that the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, her deputy Sally Yates, the head of the national security division, John Carlin, Bruce Ohr and other senior DOJ officials and, regrettably, line attorneys -- people who were senior career civil servants -- [allegedly] violated the law." (Daily Caller)
Is it because your pet hypothesis would be forever exposed as fraudulent crap if subjected to reality. I think it is. Prove me wrong and pick a tree. Reality demands it.
So, why can't you pick a tree from all possible trees? What are you afraid of?
Doug, why can't you pick a tree and be part of reality? Instead of being some kind of paranarmal dipshit with no tree?