Re: Shocking lack of amino acids in DNA
|Dummy this please, no idea what your point is....|
By a rational metric I mean some actual formula or calculation that can be used to repeatably measure the information content of a genome/sequence such that 2 independent people could get the same result when performing an analysis of the same genome/sequence.
|You never seem to finish sentences.|
I did finish the sentence you just seem unfamiliar with the parenthetical use of the comma. Without my parenthetical interjection "as in actually measure not just say 'wow that looks pretty complex, I bet god did it'" the original phrase would be "an actual answer to the question of how to measure the informational content of a genome or sequence of DNA."
You still aren't providing any such measure and Michael Polanyi certainly didn't have one.
|Nucleotide content, coding densities, total functional DNA sequences, and complexity of sequences.|
None of these are suitable. Nucleotide content, which normally means the ratios of the different nucleotides so I'll assume that is what you meant, can tell you something about a stretch of DNA but it is by no means a measure of information in any standard sense.
Similarly 'coding densities' tell us something about the composition of the genome, but they don't tell us about its informational content, just how the coding sequences are distributed. It also ignores the fact that a lot of functional elements are well characterised which are not within protein coding sequences (Taft et al, 2007).
Total functional DNA sequences, seems reasonable as a starting point but is a damn hard thing to actually measure and you still have to decide how to use it for comparing genomes. Is the proportion of functional sequences the important thing, or the total number of nucleotides in a functional seuqence, or the number of critical functional nucleotides without which the sequence will lose its function? Is a 'functional density' measure perhaps a better approach?
As to 'complexity' that is almost as problematic to measure as information. Are we talking kolmogorov complexity or some other formalised mathematical approach?
Some of those things may serve as the basis for a useful informational metric, but just thrown out like that they are virtually useless.
|Which is more complex: Human, or an amoeba? AND why|
As I just said above, complexity is not itself a straightforward measure. Certainly in what might be termed 'morphological complexity', the organisation of a collection of cells as part of one organism a human with billions of cells is clearly more complex than an amoeba's one.
If we look at the genomic level then things get more complicated. Many amoebae have much larger genomes than humans, up to 100s of times as large (Ref). Humans have much more in terms of regulatory genetic mechanisms though with hundreds of transcription factors and extensive non-coding regulatory sequences.
So in terms of gentic complexity there is no one simple answer, depending on how one chooses to measure it the answer may be either, which is why specifying how you are choosing to measure either information or complexity is so important if we want to actually be talking about the same thing.
|And you cannot use any of the answers I provided, since you called them all wrong|
I don't believe I did, but certainly you haven't put them forward in a way that would actually tell anyone how they could be reliably used to measure information content in a genome/sequence.
|Okay, then where do Amino acids come from? |
From different sources. Some amino acids are taken from the external environment, in humans there are a number of such 'essential' amino acids. Some amino acids, the 'non-essential' ones, are synthesised within the cell from other compounds. Having been synthesised or extracted the amino acids stay in the cell cytoplasm until they are recruited by tRNA for protein synthesis.
|...you are re-inventing science, right before my eyes|
No, I'm just telling you what science has actually found.
While you continue to refuse to offer up some usable measure of genetic information/complexity it is virtually impossible to demonstrate an increase in same because what we think is a good example may not fit your own vague criteria.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 247 by dennis780, posted 09-01-2010 5:48 AM|| ||dennis780 has not yet responded|