From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/02/2026 9:11 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 1/31/26 1:58 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)