3 ms·

I'll tell you what genes are responsible for intelligence if you can tell me which machine code instructions are responsible for Mario. ;-) ( I might need to

I'll tell you what genes are responsible for intelligence if you can tell me which machine code instructions are responsible for Mario. ;-) ( I might need to expand on that a little: I predict that "the genes responsible for intelligence" are not a thing. I think that genes tend to work together to make a living organism similar to how machine code instructions work together to make a program run. So for example: I'm pretty sure that looking at the design of eg. a 6502 can't directly predict the existence of Mario: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/055624v2.full https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/055624v2.full If you can't easily predict what neurons will do based on their layout, what chance do you have to predict the exact outcome of the genes which specify that layout? You're going to need more data than just the genes alone. )

bjourne 5y ago
The analogy doesn't work as we have indeed identified genes for many biological traits. For example, whether someone is vulnerable to certain diseases. So if iq is a biological trait, like eye color or height, it is odd that we haven't yet found any iq genes.
- summm 5y ago
  The analogy does work: we know the specific bits that are responsible for the color of Mario's hat.
  - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
    I bet one could change one or more of several different sets of bits in several different parts of the program that would change the color of mario's hat. (Perhaps thinking of it in terms of "what bits you should change" is asking the wrong question, instead it might be handier to look for the sprite definition, or to look for the sprite plotting subroutine)
- Kim_Bruning 5y ago
  This isn't a strong 1:1 mapping. Genes are not horoscopes! No gene works in a vacuum. Genes code for proteins that work together to perform diverse functions. Sure: in some situations you can indeed directly identify that a gene knock out or substitution might affect certain functions, but this is rather misleading! Genetics is actually very much Turing complete and Genes might best be looked at as a kind of software (this might be considered an understatement). For comparison: I'm sure we agree that a single machine code instruction by itself is meaningless. However, if you knock out or add a JSR (Jump to SubRoutine aka function call) at the right spot: sure you can claim that the JSR codes for a particular functionality. But: JSR is 3 bytes on a 6502, would you really believe someone who told you that 3 bytes is what it takes to "make Mario jump"? In reality there's a lot more instructions behind it (with perhaps calls to further subroutines, and more subroutines past that). Genes are not quite 6502 code of course, if anything they're rather more sophisticated. To look at some of your examples: You mention eye color which is determined by quite a number of genes working together (eg. location, color select, pigment) . Height is affected by ... almost everything all at once over a longer period of time (eating, sleeping, age, eating at a particular age, metabolic rate : which itself is fairly sophisticated... there's wall charts that span an entire room). This to the point where some people give up and say "height is actually mostly environmentally determined". (Of course in reality it's an interaction between Genes and environment) Vulnerability and immunity to diseases is very interesting indeed, if you eg. look at the role of somatic hypermutation in acquired immunity. And all of these would obviously not work without working cells with DNA transcription, metabolism, membranes, replication, etc. ;-) In short: be a little bit careful with claims in newspapers that say people have found a "Gene for X".

bjourne 5y ago

The analogy doesn't work as we have indeed identified genes for many biological traits. For example, whether someone is vulnerable to certain diseases. So if iq is a biological trait, like eye color or height, it is odd that we haven't yet found any iq genes.

summm 5y ago
The analogy does work: we know the specific bits that are responsible for the color of Mario's hat.
- Kim_Bruning 5y ago
  I bet one could change one or more of several different sets of bits in several different parts of the program that would change the color of mario's hat. (Perhaps thinking of it in terms of "what bits you should change" is asking the wrong question, instead it might be handier to look for the sprite definition, or to look for the sprite plotting subroutine)
Kim_Bruning 5y ago
This isn't a strong 1:1 mapping. Genes are not horoscopes! No gene works in a vacuum. Genes code for proteins that work together to perform diverse functions. Sure: in some situations you can indeed directly identify that a gene knock out or substitution might affect certain functions, but this is rather misleading! Genetics is actually very much Turing complete and Genes might best be looked at as a kind of software (this might be considered an understatement). For comparison: I'm sure we agree that a single machine code instruction by itself is meaningless. However, if you knock out or add a JSR (Jump to SubRoutine aka function call) at the right spot: sure you can claim that the JSR codes for a particular functionality. But: JSR is 3 bytes on a 6502, would you really believe someone who told you that 3 bytes is what it takes to "make Mario jump"? In reality there's a lot more instructions behind it (with perhaps calls to further subroutines, and more subroutines past that). Genes are not quite 6502 code of course, if anything they're rather more sophisticated. To look at some of your examples: You mention eye color which is determined by quite a number of genes working together (eg. location, color select, pigment) . Height is affected by ... almost everything all at once over a longer period of time (eating, sleeping, age, eating at a particular age, metabolic rate : which itself is fairly sophisticated... there's wall charts that span an entire room). This to the point where some people give up and say "height is actually mostly environmentally determined". (Of course in reality it's an interaction between Genes and environment) Vulnerability and immunity to diseases is very interesting indeed, if you eg. look at the role of somatic hypermutation in acquired immunity. And all of these would obviously not work without working cells with DNA transcription, metabolism, membranes, replication, etc. ;-) In short: be a little bit careful with claims in newspapers that say people have found a "Gene for X".