From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 31/01/2026 5:56 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 1/29/26 9:54 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> On 30/01/2026 3:17 pm, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>> On 1/29/26 7:57 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>> On 30/01/2026 2:10 pm, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/29/26 6:40 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 30/01/2026 12:50 pm, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/29/26 5:31 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> 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?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I'm interested to hear your response to this.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I thought it was a silly rhetorical gibe. What would not be an   
   >>>>> analogy? Computer memory. I suppose that a written sequence of As,   
   >>>>> Gs, Cs, and Ts would also be digital information.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> To recap:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You: "Digital" and "analog" are empty buzzwords in this context."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I challenged that dismissive remark with "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...Are we agreed that   
   >>>> DNA can be accurately described as *digital* information?" To which   
   >>>> you responded:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "That's an analogy. It's not a hopeless one, but it's still an   
   >>>> analogy."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> We're making progress, but still not there. I challenged again with:   
   >>>> "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."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You finally gave this grudging concession: "I suppose that a written   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)