4 ms·

How many lines of code is our DNA? Could there be a similar effect at work in other systems, concerning network size and orthogonality that limits their size?

How many lines of code is our DNA? Could there be a similar effect at work in other systems, concerning network size and orthogonality that limits their size? Things like the amount of complexity in DNA of organisms, or the size of cells, etc.?

philh 12y ago
The size of our (non-junk) DNA is limited by its mutation rate. (Though I don't know how the limit grows as a function of mutation rate, and I don't know if we've hit that limit as a species.)
- GregBuchholz 12y ago
  I thought that "junk DNA" was now a discarded misnomer, and that while there are sections that don't code for protein synthesis, it still has a biological function. It looks like it is still up in the air as to what percentage of non-coding DNA is biologically vital. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA
  - philh 12y ago
    If junk DNA doesn't exist, the limit applies to the whole genome. (I lean towards thinking that some non-junk DNA has been previously mistakenly classified as junk, but that junk DNA still exists in a meaningful sense. But I'm a layman, and I don't even have a strong idea of what the expert consensus is.)
vanderZwan 12y ago
Well, there's this: For years, the prevailing assumption was simply that modules evolved because entities that were modular could respond to change more quickly, and therefore had an adaptive advantage over their non-modular competitors. But that may not be enough to explain the origin of the phenomena. The team discovered that evolution produces modules not because they produce more adaptable designs, but because modular designs have fewer and shorter network connections, which are costly to build and maintain. As it turned out, it was enough to include a "cost of wiring" to make evolution favor modular architectures. http://www.astrobio.net/topic/exploration/robotics-a-i/evolving-biological-networks-in-computers/ http://www.astrobio.net/topic/exploration/robotics-a-i/evolv...

philh 12y ago

The size of our (non-junk) DNA is limited by its mutation rate. (Though I don't know how the limit grows as a function of mutation rate, and I don't know if we've hit that limit as a species.)

GregBuchholz 12y ago
I thought that "junk DNA" was now a discarded misnomer, and that while there are sections that don't code for protein synthesis, it still has a biological function. It looks like it is still up in the air as to what percentage of non-coding DNA is biologically vital. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA
- philh 12y ago
  If junk DNA doesn't exist, the limit applies to the whole genome. (I lean towards thinking that some non-junk DNA has been previously mistakenly classified as junk, but that junk DNA still exists in a meaningful sense. But I'm a layman, and I don't even have a strong idea of what the expert consensus is.)

vanderZwan 12y ago

Well, there's this: For years, the prevailing assumption was simply that modules evolved because entities that were modular could respond to change more quickly, and therefore had an adaptive advantage over their non-modular competitors. But that may not be enough to explain the origin of the phenomena. The team discovered that evolution produces modules not because they produce more adaptable designs, but because modular designs have fewer and shorter network connections, which are costly to build and maintain. As it turned out, it was enough to include a "cost of wiring" to make evolution favor modular architectures. http://www.astrobio.net/topic/exploration/robotics-a-i/evolving-biological-networks-in-computers/ http://www.astrobio.net/topic/exploration/robotics-a-i/evolv...