Editing 1605: DNA
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
| − | Because we have pretty much {{w|Human Genome Project|mapped the entire human genome}}, it's tempting to think we now know what makes our bodies tick and can start changing things. But just knowing what the individual pieces are, doesn't mean we know how they interact and behave in a complex system like our bodies. | + | Because we have pretty much {{w|Human Genome Project|mapped the entire human genome}}, it's tempting to think we now know what makes our bodies tick and can start changing things. But just knowing what the individual pieces are, doesn't mean we know how they interact and behave in a complex system like our bodies. |
| − | In the comic, [[White Hat]] thinks that mapping the human genome is the same as knowing the {{w|source code}} for a {{w|computer program}}. By studying the source code for a program, a person can often understand why it does what it does, and make effective and fundamental changes to the program's operation. | + | In the comic, [[White Hat]] thinks that mapping the human genome is the same as knowing the {{w|source code}} for a {{w|computer program}}. By studying the source code for a program, a person can often understand why it does what it does, and make effective and fundamental changes to the program's operation. [[Megan]] tries to point out to him, that while in theory that could be the case with the human body, the reality is the human body is of such a magnitude more complicated than the kinds of programs we have running that the comparison is not valid. White Hat is not ready to listen to her even though she states that {{w|DNA}} has been developed in the most aggressive optimization process in the universe, running for billions of years. White Hat's thought process is similar to the physicist in [[793: Physicists]] who assumes that any other field is simple because it's similar to something he's seen before. |
| − | + | Finally Megan {{w|Hacker koan|enlightens}} White Hat by making him look at {{w|Google}}'s source code. On the surface, it looks like a very plain white page with a search box in the middle plus a few text links and icons, and indeed back in the 1990s Google's {{w|HTML}} was quite simple. But in less than 20 years, Google developers have vastly expanded it with over 300 kilobytes of {{w|Minification (programming)|minified}} Javascript and CSS. This analogy causes White Hat to consider how much more complexity could evolve over billions of years through the relentless forces of nature. | |
| − | + | What makes this even worse for DNA is that although it can be thought of 'source code' it isn't for a comprehensive language, and that this code was generated through various natural mechanisms such as {{w|natural selection}}, feedback loops like {{w|homeostasis}}, etc., even including possible processes that are not currently known to science. This means that not all parts make sense and that there may be all kinds of side effects and things that have several purposes. Looking at some obfuscated source code may make it clearer how misleading even simple looking code can be and how unreadable correct and well working code can be. | |
| − | + | The title text reference to finding the gene that is responsible "for mistakenly thinking we've found the gene for specific things" is a reference to the tendency of news organizations to run headlines making similar claims, often by oversimplifying or misrepresenting the actual study. These claims are based off the common belief that since DNA is a 'source code' for our body it should be possible to pin point the effect of individual genes in much the same way that we could describe the effect each line of code has on a program; leading to people expecting one gene to be associated with each observable human trait. In reality even small traits are the results of hundreds of genes, sometime spread across multiple chromosomes, interacting together through complex mechanisms; making it rare that a single gene, or gene sequence, can be definitively stated to be the sole, or primary, cause of a given trait. | |
| − | The title text | + | The jokes of the title text is that is that the responsible gene is located in ''the region between the start and the end of every chromosome'' which is the whole {{w|chromosome}}, effectively claiming that it is the whole of our DNA, not any one piece, that must be considered responsible for the referenced trait, since the interconnected nature of DNA means that every gene is partially responsible in generating any complex traits. [[Randall]] even includes the {{w|mitochondria}} stating that the gene could also be in some segments of the mitochondrion. Mitochondrion is a part of the cell that are outside the cell-nucleus. The chromosome is located in the nucleus, but the Mitochondria has its own independent genome, so some part of the human DNA is not located in the chromosomes. This makes it really complex, and makes it even less distinct where this gene should be and it implies that all of our genes make us think we've found the gene for specific things. |
| − | + | Technically a gene is "a locus (or region) of DNA that encodes a functional RNA or protein product", which means that it is a single discrete unit of DNA, with human DNA containing over 20,000 genes. Thus the theoretical gene could not include the entire ''region between the start and the end of every chromosome'' since that region contains thousands of genes, any more then it's possible to say that the ace of clubs is the card everywhere from the top of the full deck of cards to the bottom of it. | |
| − | |||
| − | Technically a gene is "a locus (or region) of DNA that encodes a functional RNA or protein product", which means that it is a single discrete unit of DNA, with human DNA containing over 20,000 genes. Thus the theoretical gene could not include the entire ''region between the start and the end of every chromosome'' since that region contains thousands of genes, any more | ||
Of course if such a gene actually did exist, then we would never be able to correctly identify where it was since we would make a mistake every time we thought we found a gene for something specific. So the whole title text is either a {{w|contradiction}} (they could never find this gene if it was there) and/or it is a {{w|Tautology (logic)|tautology}} since if the gene did exist, then of course it has to be part of our entire DNA. (If it is a tautology it is the second title text using this in just two weeks, the last being [[1602: Linguistics Club]].) | Of course if such a gene actually did exist, then we would never be able to correctly identify where it was since we would make a mistake every time we thought we found a gene for something specific. So the whole title text is either a {{w|contradiction}} (they could never find this gene if it was there) and/or it is a {{w|Tautology (logic)|tautology}} since if the gene did exist, then of course it has to be part of our entire DNA. (If it is a tautology it is the second title text using this in just two weeks, the last being [[1602: Linguistics Club]].) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
