One does though admire the honesty with which they reduce their putative science to a comparison with a magical-realist novel.

When the human genome was published the most striking feature of human DNA was how *few* genes we really had. And of those genes, only 100 were different than those of a lab mouse (whose genome was published at the same time).

When researchers began unraveling DNA they anticipated tens of thousands of genes to account for the complexity of the human mind and body. They assumed that they could find the gene for mathematical prowess, musical genius, or even high jumping ability. What they found is that the genes are merely the first in a complicated chain of events which create a human.

Its the *proteins* created by the genes and the subsequent multiple interactions of these proteins with each other (and the proteins that they make, and the proteins made after that, and so on) which creates a person. The whole process is complicated to the point of invoking chaos theory, in that the processes may be deterministic but untraceable and unpredictable. Each gene is apparently wholly or partially responsible for multiple physical and mental characteristics. Disturbing one gene may result in a daisy chain of unforeseeable results. So even if they found the genes for blond hair and blue eyes, altering them may also result in an idiot savant, albino with webbed toes (e.g.).

If (as it seems likely) the multiple level gene and protein productions/interactions which make a human being are complex to the point of being classified as "chaotic", then we can no more understand or trace these interactions than we can travel faster than light. There is no "gene" for height, or musical ability, or blue eyes, or male pattern baldness (much to my chagrin). These things are the result of probably nontraceable (chaotic) interactions between proteins made by genes and the other chemical made by proteins, and their interactions, etc.

daniel duffy:

I was shocked to read an article a few years ago which went over issues of the genome and brain chemistry in detail and included the observation that some scientists feel tempted to throw up their hands and conclude that this subject may simply be too complicated for the human mind to figure out -- in the same manner, I suppose, as the human world is too complicated for a dog to understand.

Not sure if that's true or not, but to hear something like that from scientists is amazing and gives ample voice to their frustration over this subject.

See Wallace Arthur, "Theories of Biology," written in 1987, for a full discussion of the appropriate weight to be given to the physical/mathematical approach to genetics.

It is a fantasy of ignoramuses like daniel that researchers expected to find a gene for math.

I really don't get you other guys. The discoveries of biology are not a secret. You could look them up.

But you don't and you expose yourselves, over and over, as know-nothings. I understand why Orrin does it. But the rest, it's a puzzlement.

That the Guardian is a whole generation behind on biology is not particularly a surprise.

harry, its easy to call names and pretend to know more than everyone else, but at the end of the day you are just parroting what you have read, too. you haven't discovered or invented anything, either. how different are the speculative theories of this or that biological "expert" from the chin music coming from people like hawkings ? i think everyone here is after the same things: insight, knowledge, truth, and some spirited discussion.

so many areas of research are politicized now that it is not possible to grant any researcher the benefit of the doubt.

now i am a s/w engineer and its pretty clear to me that dna is analagous to a computer program. figure out the language and its rules, and all will become clear. biologists are analagous to h/w engineers, so most likely the true break throughs won't come from them.

how about sharing some of your obvious knowledge on the subject, and be a better person than harry reid ?

Well, it does not surprise me that people who invent gods also think they can invent biologists. The difference being that there is no real god to check your fantasies against, while there really are biologists.

Before we get to the insight stage, it might be as well to check and see what the real biologists did say, instead of -- as daniel does -- just making crap up.

You want me to share. I already directed you to the excellent Wallace Arthur, one of the clearest thinkers in biology. (Unfortunately, I misremembered the title of the book. It's 'Theories of Life.' Been 20 years, which is how far you guys are out of date.)

Want more? OK. On the pattern of causal interconnections underlying development (what daniel wants to be talking about): 'Morphogenetic complexity depends on the activation/inactivation of gene sets, not single genes . . . '

That's from J.H. Sang in 'Genetics and Development' written back in 1984.

It is not possible to conduct a seminar on a subject as complex as biology on a blog, even if I were qualified. You have to go out and actually devote some effort to becoming informed.

Here's another 'insight,' one I just learned about yesterday: You have a gene, named SCML, in you that codes for the sex comb on the midleg.

I bet you have neither sex combs nor middle legs, but you do share genes with fruit flies.

Since you are a software engineer, I recommend Arthur's chapter 9, 'The Variable Gene Activity Theory of Cell Differentiation' and chapter 10, 'The Missing Theory of Development.'

You might change your views about how closely DNA compares with a computer program.

It is no surprise that people who imagine they can create gods would also think they can create biologists.

The difference is that while there is no god to check your fantasies against, there really are biologists and we can look in books to see what they said, instead of just making crap up, like daniel.

Let's look in J.H. Sang's 'Genetics and Development.'

Writing about patterns of causal interconnections underlying development (what daniel incorrectly imagines he was writing about), Sang says, ' Morphogenetic complexity depends on the activation/inactivation of gene sets, not single genes . . . ' That was published in 1984.

It is beyond either my competence or the parameters of a blog to run a seminar on biology, but I did try to direct you to Wallace Arthur, one of the clearest thinkers in biology. (Unfortunately, I misremembered the title. It's 'Theories of Life.' Been a while since I'd read it.)

It is not a pretense that I know more about what biologists say than others here (I won't say all others, but you know who you are). Once we all were on the same page about what biologists say, then we could go on to debate what insights we might have about that.

Let me suggest that the approach of making crap up will not lead to any considerable insights.

As for your comparison of DNA to software, it may be a lot more complicated than that. I recommend Arthur's chapter 9, 'The Variable Gene Activity Theory of Cell Differentiation' and chapter 10, 'The Missing Theory of Development' to you.

Hmmm. Sorry about that. My first post was not showing, so I repeated myself.

hmmm, apologies for double posting but nothing for all the name calling; ok. i may not know as much as you do about biology (but more than you think i know) but i do know that the refresh control on a browser will help avoid double posting.

there are, what, 8 or so amino acids used to describe all dna sequences ? [i didn't look up the exact number because i wanted you to be able to correct me] that is a language; all statements (genes) are produced from this small set of elements. proteins are the output of the program.

i await your courteous and informative reply, or is this going to be another case of "its too complicated to explain here" ?

There aren't any amino acids in DNA, so, yes, it might take more space than a blog post to explain it to you.

I don't believe that you know more biology than I think you know, and I don't think you know any.

But I can try to explain why you have oversimplified. The DNA-protein system is not like a slot machine at Vegas -- put in a nickel and get lots of nickels back.

To take a very simple case, during development of a sheet of tissue, which needs to differentiate into different kinds of cells, chemical signals (proteins, enzymes) feed back to a control gene that acts something like a rheostat. Depending on the concentration of this enzyme, this gene produces (more precisely, directs the production of) another protein that switches on or off another gene that produces a different signal chemical that switches on or off yet a different gene that produces (or shuts off) a protein that, when it reaches a threshold concentration in the growing cells of the tissue causes the cells to differentiate.

Although it's beyond my competence, some of these systems (not all) have now been described down to the level of action of individual atoms.

You seem to imagine that DNA is a code (which is correct) that, given the key, reads off proteins (also correct). There is more to it than that.

Interestingly, in the earliest stages of development, the genes are not switched on at all. The initial signals (up to blastomere stage, at least in Drosophila) come from proteins inherited from the mother and packaged along with the nucleic acid of the new individual in the surrounding cytoplasm of the egg.

There aren't any amino acids in DNA, so, yes, it might take more space than a blog post to explain it to you.

I don't believe that you know more biology than I think you know, and I don't think you know any.

But I can try to explain why you have oversimplified. The DNA-protein system is not like a slot machine at Vegas -- put in a nickel and get lots of nickels back.

To take a very simple case, during development of a sheet of tissue, which needs to differentiate into different kinds of cells, chemical signals (proteins, enzymes) feed back to a control gene that acts something like a rheostat. Depending on the concentration of this enzyme, this gene produces (more precisely, directs the production of) another protein that switches on or off another gene that produces a different signal chemical that switches on or off yet a different gene that produces (or shuts off) a protein that, when it reaches a threshold concentration in the growing cells of the tissue causes the cells to differentiate.

Although it's beyond my competence, some of these systems (not all) have now been described down to the level of action of individual atoms.

You seem to imagine that DNA is a code (which is correct) that, given the key, reads off proteins (also correct). There is more to it than that.

Interestingly, in the earliest stages of development, the genes are not switched on at all. The initial signals (up to blastomere stage, at least in Drosophila) come from proteins inherited from the mother and packaged along with the nucleic acid of the new individual in the surrounding cytoplasm of the egg.