4 ms·

This hysteria exist mainly because most people are led to believes "genes" are something that they are not. They are not "blueprints" much less some sort of en

by _red 10y ago

This hysteria exist mainly because most people are led to believes "genes" are something that they are not. They are not "blueprints" much less some sort of engineering document. More realistically, they are a simple list of materials (in this case a listing of proteins). They only describe the materials that make up a structure, not what that structure is nor how it functions. Its the equivalent of someone saying: 14,234 tons of steel, 23,000 tons of concrete, 8000 tons of glass...etc. Now, what does it make? Why does it make it?

nightcracker 10y ago
While this analogy is most likely not understood by people who don't understand gene expression, I still like it. I think of genes as the initial configuration in Conway's game of life. Small initial (genetic) variations can cause large differences after some generations. Some don't matter at all and just die out. But no matter what is the end result, it's not a blue print or a description, it just _is_, and the result flows from it using some basic rules.
jackcosgrove 10y ago
So what mechanism carries the information of how the body functions from generation to generation if not genes?
- tosseraccount 10y ago
  Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Transgenerational https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Transgenerational
  - jackcosgrove 10y ago
    Epigenetics may influence gene expression, but as your link says others are skeptical that it constitutes an independent information vector. Epigenetic activities may themselves be encoded in genes. Epigenetics as a concept can also be abused into a sort of neo-Lamarckism.
    - fifnir 10y ago
      >Epigenetic activities may themselves be encoded in genes. But good luck growing a healthy organism without its epigenetic landscape properly initialized
      - im3w1l 10y ago
        Has it been verified experimentally that it's not possible?
- toufka 10y ago
  Physics. More specifically, 'conditions'. More specifically, the environment in which the ingredients are produced determines how the ingredients assemble. The analogy to the ingredients list is a decent one, but it is also a tad misleading. You generally do require knowledge of the environment to figure out how the parts will assemble, but many of the parts do work in many different environments and can be considered whole and separable objects rather than ingredients. But trying to separate evolution/life from its environment is the first mistake a student makes when studying evolution. As a grandparent stated, if the genes are the starting positions in Conway's Game of Life, the laws of physics are the rules of the game, and the physical conditions (temperature, pH, gravity, time, etc.) are the topology and specifics of the board you'll be playing on. Then you just hit play and certain concepts self-assemble - the flier, the block, the boat, etc. Some can then be used as objects in themselves, some can be used structurally, some can be used to build/destroy structure - that is life.
  - jackcosgrove 10y ago
    If the laws of physics are universal (fingers crossed), then this factor gets canceled out. Obviously organisms which evolved under our physical regime can only function properly within our physical regime. But this doesn't add any information as to why one set of genes manifests itself differently than another set of genes, since the physical laws are the same.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >If the laws of physics are universal (fingers crossed), then this factor gets canceled out This is beside the point, as parent already explained what he meant in his first 2 sentences: "Physics. More specifically, 'conditions'". So, yes, the laws of physics might be universal, but gravity is X here and N on the moon, pressure is Y here and M under the sea, temperature, etc...
rflrob 10y ago
"Genes" as protein coding regions is a common shorthand, but there's another, broader definition of "gene" as "a locus in the genome that bears some responsibility for a trait". For instance, the ability to consume lactose post infancy is a trait driven by a mutation not in a protein coding region, but could reasonably called a "gene for lactase persistence". In general, we don't have good bottom-up ways of understanding which regions of the genome are regulatory, much less what that regulation is doing. So according to one definition, it's even worse than your 14,234 tons of steel example: it's closer to "steel is a mixture of iron and carbon and trace amounts of other dopants, glass is silicon dioxide, concrete is ..." Without even listing the amounts. But by another definition, the genes are, if not a blueprint, at the very least a recipe and ingredient list. "Butter, flour, water, sugar, apples, cinnamon, cloves. Cut 125g butter into flour; if too coarse, continue cutting. Add water to ice. Add water from ice into flour..." The information is clearly there—we have a long, unbroken history of offspring being very similar to their parents, despite having started with only a single, undifferentiated cell. But with the new tools available to us, we're starting to have a hope of understanding it, even if we're using more brute force than we'd like.
sndean 10y ago
> More realistically, they are a simple list of materials (in this case a listing of proteins). > Its the equivalent of someone saying: 14,234 tons of steel.. I feel like that's taking things a bit too far in the other direction. With our current understanding, it's like saying: 14,234 tons of steel that's capable of self-assembling (e.g., collagen), 23,000 tons of concrete that automatically folds into a specific structure (~everything other than disordered proteins). That's not to say that we fully understand how proteins fold/function... but it's a bit more than a static block of steel.

by _red 10y ago

nightcracker 10y ago

While this analogy is most likely not understood by people who don't understand gene expression, I still like it. I think of genes as the initial configuration in Conway's game of life. Small initial (genetic) variations can cause large differences after some generations. Some don't matter at all and just die out. But no matter what is the end result, it's not a blue print or a description, it just _is_, and the result flows from it using some basic rules.

jackcosgrove 10y ago

So what mechanism carries the information of how the body functions from generation to generation if not genes?

tosseraccount 10y ago
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Transgenerational https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Transgenerational
- jackcosgrove 10y ago
  Epigenetics may influence gene expression, but as your link says others are skeptical that it constitutes an independent information vector. Epigenetic activities may themselves be encoded in genes. Epigenetics as a concept can also be abused into a sort of neo-Lamarckism.
  - fifnir 10y ago
    >Epigenetic activities may themselves be encoded in genes. But good luck growing a healthy organism without its epigenetic landscape properly initialized
    - im3w1l 10y ago
      Has it been verified experimentally that it's not possible?
toufka 10y ago
Physics. More specifically, 'conditions'. More specifically, the environment in which the ingredients are produced determines how the ingredients assemble. The analogy to the ingredients list is a decent one, but it is also a tad misleading. You generally do require knowledge of the environment to figure out how the parts will assemble, but many of the parts do work in many different environments and can be considered whole and separable objects rather than ingredients. But trying to separate evolution/life from its environment is the first mistake a student makes when studying evolution. As a grandparent stated, if the genes are the starting positions in Conway's Game of Life, the laws of physics are the rules of the game, and the physical conditions (temperature, pH, gravity, time, etc.) are the topology and specifics of the board you'll be playing on. Then you just hit play and certain concepts self-assemble - the flier, the block, the boat, etc. Some can then be used as objects in themselves, some can be used structurally, some can be used to build/destroy structure - that is life.
- jackcosgrove 10y ago
  If the laws of physics are universal (fingers crossed), then this factor gets canceled out. Obviously organisms which evolved under our physical regime can only function properly within our physical regime. But this doesn't add any information as to why one set of genes manifests itself differently than another set of genes, since the physical laws are the same.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >If the laws of physics are universal (fingers crossed), then this factor gets canceled out This is beside the point, as parent already explained what he meant in his first 2 sentences: "Physics. More specifically, 'conditions'". So, yes, the laws of physics might be universal, but gravity is X here and N on the moon, pressure is Y here and M under the sea, temperature, etc...

rflrob 10y ago

"Genes" as protein coding regions is a common shorthand, but there's another, broader definition of "gene" as "a locus in the genome that bears some responsibility for a trait". For instance, the ability to consume lactose post infancy is a trait driven by a mutation not in a protein coding region, but could reasonably called a "gene for lactase persistence". In general, we don't have good bottom-up ways of understanding which regions of the genome are regulatory, much less what that regulation is doing. So according to one definition, it's even worse than your 14,234 tons of steel example: it's closer to "steel is a mixture of iron and carbon and trace amounts of other dopants, glass is silicon dioxide, concrete is ..." Without even listing the amounts. But by another definition, the genes are, if not a blueprint, at the very least a recipe and ingredient list. "Butter, flour, water, sugar, apples, cinnamon, cloves. Cut 125g butter into flour; if too coarse, continue cutting. Add water to ice. Add water from ice into flour..." The information is clearly there—we have a long, unbroken history of offspring being very similar to their parents, despite having started with only a single, undifferentiated cell. But with the new tools available to us, we're starting to have a hope of understanding it, even if we're using more brute force than we'd like.

sndean 10y ago

> More realistically, they are a simple list of materials (in this case a listing of proteins). > Its the equivalent of someone saying: 14,234 tons of steel.. I feel like that's taking things a bit too far in the other direction. With our current understanding, it's like saying: 14,234 tons of steel that's capable of self-assembling (e.g., collagen), 23,000 tons of concrete that automatically folds into a specific structure (~everything other than disordered proteins). That's not to say that we fully understand how proteins fold/function... but it's a bit more than a static block of steel.