From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 30/01/2026 11:20 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 1/29/26 3:37 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> On 27/01/2026 11:41 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>> On 1/24/26 3:28 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>> On 24/01/2026 1:54 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/22/26 6:15 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 23/01/2026 1:31 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/21/26 9:18 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 22/01/2026 3:22 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>   
   >> ...   
   >>   
   >>>>>>> Now if you're interested in what makes an organism, without much   
   >>>>>>> regard for what kind of organism, you have a point that the ovum   
   >>>>>>> has various bits that must be in place in order to get the   
   >>>>>>> process of development going, and that there are many   
   >>>>>>> interactions between cells that are not directly controlled by   
   >>>>>>> the genome. But the source of the bits that interact is still the   
   >>>>>>> genome, at first the maternal genome and later the zygote's.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Certainly all proteins in the cell are produced from gene coding.   
   >>>> However, doesn't the following (for example) demonstrate that the   
   >>>> cytoplasm is in control and telling the DNA what to do (so to speak):   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "It is concluded that whenever nuclei are introduced experimentally   
   >>>> into the cytoplasm of another cell, they very quickly assume, in   
   >>>> nearly every respect, the nuclear activity characteristic of the   
   >>>> host cell. In many instances, altered function has been demonstrated   
   >>>> in nuclei which subsequently support normal development." [1]   
   >>>   
   >>> Sure, that's because various transcription factors and such are in   
   >>> the cytoplasm, having been transcribed and translated from the   
   >>> previous nucleus. Differences between genomes result in differences   
   >>> in expression.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Here's the critical logic: if the direction of control flow is bi-   
   >>>> directional, then to resolve a chicken-and-egg paradox, we must   
   >>>> conclude that information is initially present in both the nucleus   
   >>>> and extra-nuclear, in effectively digital and analogue form   
   >>>> respectively.   
   >>>   
   >>> "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context. But yes,   
   >>> proteins contain information, if that's what you mean. But that   
   >>> information is inherited, over the long term, in the form of DNA.   
   >>   
   >> On what basis do you deem these "empty buzzwords"?   
   >>   
   >> A digital information medium stores heritable information in discrete   
   >> symbolic sequences that are copied and decoded by rule-based molecular   
   >> machinery. The human genome at 3.2 billion base pairs can be simply   
   >> mapped into 6.4 billion bits of digital information. Are we agreed   
   >> that DNA can be accurately described as *digital* information? (Along   
   >> with its chemical and structural/physical properties and interactions.)   
   >   
   > That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an analogy.   
      
   No, it's not an analogy, it's a legitimate application of a definition   
   and identification of actual digital information, and large amount of it   
   at that.   
      
   What do you imagine would not be an analogy? Cut open an alien lifeform   
   and see 0s and 1s pour out?   
      
   >   
   >> The ovum cytoplasm consists of a complex and dynamic distribution of   
   >> cellular structures. About 20,000–40,000 distinct molecular species   
   >> are present in the human ovum cytoplasm, including RNAs, proteins,   
   >> lipids, and metabolites. This a vast "factory/city" consisting of   
   >> approximately 10¹² protein molecules, 10⁷ ribosomes, 10⁷ mRNA   
   >> molecules, 10⁹ tRNA molecules, 10¹³ metabolite molecules, 10¹⁴ lipid   
   >> molecules. It is one of the most molecule-rich single cells in the   
   >> human body, pre-loaded to run early development before the embryonic   
   >> genome activates.   
   >   
   > You will note that the RNAs and proteins are as much digital information   
   > as DNA is, though again that's still analogy.   
      
   I'm referring not to the sequence of their constituent units, but to the   
   concentration gradients and distribution profile of countless copies of   
   each, representing "continuous, smoothly varying physical quantities"   
   (i.e. the definition of analog information below).   
      
   >   
   > The metabolite molecules are not any sort of information, nor, I think,   
   > are the lipids.   
      
   Applying the definition of analog information reiterated above, they are   
   certainly are.   
      
   >   
   >> If "analog" information is information represented by continuous,   
   >> smoothly varying physical quantities, where differences in magnitude   
   >> carry information rather than discrete symbols, the cytoplasm's   
   >> concentration, distribution, and structuring of these represents a   
   >> substantial amount of information that is, effectively, *analog*   
   >> information.   
   >   
   > There are no symbols in any of this. DNA is not a collection of symbols.   
   > And DNA has a fair amount of dosage information too.   
   >   
   >> The genome codes for the proteins and has other major influences on   
   >> the cytoplasm, to be sure. But there's a reason you can't clone a   
   >> human by implanting human DNA is chimp cell: there is essential   
   >> "analog" information in the cytoplasm.   
   >   
   > I doubt anyone has tried that experiment, and until you can provide   
   > evidence that it was tried and didn't work, your claim here is empty.   
   > The most likely reason for failure in such a case would probably be   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)