[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: humans fewer genes than expected

Folks,

These posts reminded me of a thing that has struck me
a few times - when considering numbers of interacting
"parts" or interdependent variables, the threshold of
essentially infinite complexity is very low, like 3. Three
is all it takes for the 3-body problem to defy solution. The
Lorenz attractor and its mechanical analog the chaotic
waterwheel also require just 3 main interacting variables:
a "generative" or forcing function (variable rate of water
pouring in to leaky cups) and a "constraint" (a variable
strength brake that puts friction on the wheel); and if we
counted the interaction of these two variables as itself a
higher order or relational variable (relation or relative
strengths of forcing and braking parameters, and most
interesting behavior where the two are near equal), that
makes the same 3 variables. The complexity threshold
that is crossed is that all predictability is lost for the
behavior (position, momentum) of either the Lorenz
equations or the chaotic waterwheel.

This website has info on the chaotic waterwheel
http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/~fischel/Lorenz97/wheel.html

Dan


Judith Rosen wrote: 
*Steve,*
**
*Thanks for posting that quote; I hadn't seen it. *
**
*Sheesh:  "...the key to complexity lies not in the genes but in the
gaps between them..." *
**
*Why do people persist in trying to simplify things? The key to
complexity lies in the genes, the gaps between them, and the way the
genes and the gaps are arranged (their organization), along with
whatever else is at work in this that we don't know about yet.*
**
*Still, I guess it's a good thing to see a mainstream press article
actually saying the very thing that earned my father the ire of
classical physicists: /That there is information in between the material
parts./*
**
*Judith*

    ----- Original Message -----
    *From:* Steve Johnson <mailto:***>
    *To:* *** <mailto:***>
    *Sent:* Monday, October 25, 2004 6:04 PM
    *Subject:* [ROSEN] humans fewer genes than expected

    This news has been making rounds recently. All these researchers
    being surprised by the low number of genes reminded me of Rosen's
    essays on the premature identification of Medelian genes with DNA
    where he recognized these problems with great clarity. Here is my
    favorite quote from a BBC article:

    "Now the gene number has been revised downwards even further, and
    scientists suspect that the key to complexity lies not in the genes,
    but in the gaps between them. They are gradually discovering that
    the way genes are controlled - how, when and where they are
    activated - is a magnificently important and intricate process. It
    is as if each gene were a Swiss army knife - they can do several
    jobs, depending on how they are handled.  "There may be a whole lot
    of stuff in the genome that we just don't know how to extract yet,"
    said Dr Hubbard. "There is a big international collaboration trying
    to find out what there is apart from protein coding genes.""

(from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3760766.stm)

- Steve