From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 31/01/2026 2:37 pm, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 1/30/26 5:26 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)