5 ms·

Small part of the picture is an exaggeration, IMO. Cellular electrical dynamics matter, but we already know that surface physics matter (see: any mammalian lab

by koeng 6y ago

Small part of the picture is an exaggeration, IMO. Cellular electrical dynamics matter, but we already know that surface physics matter (see: any mammalian lab with those flat little red bottles). Those dynamics (physical, electrical, chemical) are all derived from genes coded in DNA, and so long as you have the basic ribosomes / mitochondrial structures, you can re-instantiate an entire organism from just the DNA.

TaupeRanger 6y ago
DNA is certainly necessary and integral, but not at all sufficient for a full scientific understanding. Just like quantum mechanics is to rocket science. The heavy focus on genetics has hindered our understanding until very recently IMO.
- koeng 6y ago
  > hindered our understanding until very recently IMO Any specific examples of how it hindered our understanding? Like maybe some grants or something? Because as a synthetic biologist, I've never seen a heavy emphasis on genetics take away from other causes of cellular dynamics - in fact, exactly the opposite, because genetic engineering has allowed tinkering of those cellular dynamics (for example, cardio tissue surface physics). I don't know of any serious biologist that (even historically) disregarded the importance of other physical factors in favor of DNA, but I would love to know compelling counter examples.
- abandonliberty 6y ago
  Rather than "small part of the picture", you would get less disagreement with something like "beginning of the story." I doubt many people would agree that computer hardware is a small part of the picture of modern computation. They're the foundations that everything else is built on, and with.
kaba0 6y ago
DNA can’t bootstrap itself, so to say. So previous cell-functionality is required for everything, so you can only re-instantiate an entire organism if you have a denucleated pluripotent cell from an evolutionary close enough organism. (But correct me if I’m wrong)

by koeng 6y ago

TaupeRanger 6y ago

DNA is certainly necessary and integral, but not at all sufficient for a full scientific understanding. Just like quantum mechanics is to rocket science. The heavy focus on genetics has hindered our understanding until very recently IMO.

koeng 6y ago
> hindered our understanding until very recently IMO Any specific examples of how it hindered our understanding? Like maybe some grants or something? Because as a synthetic biologist, I've never seen a heavy emphasis on genetics take away from other causes of cellular dynamics - in fact, exactly the opposite, because genetic engineering has allowed tinkering of those cellular dynamics (for example, cardio tissue surface physics). I don't know of any serious biologist that (even historically) disregarded the importance of other physical factors in favor of DNA, but I would love to know compelling counter examples.
abandonliberty 6y ago
Rather than "small part of the picture", you would get less disagreement with something like "beginning of the story." I doubt many people would agree that computer hardware is a small part of the picture of modern computation. They're the foundations that everything else is built on, and with.

kaba0 6y ago

DNA can’t bootstrap itself, so to say. So previous cell-functionality is required for everything, so you can only re-instantiate an entire organism if you have a denucleated pluripotent cell from an evolutionary close enough organism. (But correct me if I’m wrong)