🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan21.092927.4669@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> jek@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (James E. Kittock) writes:
>In article <1jlmb2INNjp4@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> choup@ava.bcc.orst.edu (Ping Chou) writes:
>
>>        Do you really believe the complete genome of HIV is just a 4-state
>>bits encoded string?
>
>Well, in a sense, sure.  Why?  What do you know that we
>don't?  How about educate us rather than chastise us!

Here's a start: its highly probable that variations in the physical
structure of the DNA are intimately involved in regulating expression,
both in the sense of levels (via histone binding) and process control
(start, stop, splice points). This physical structure is
simultaneously redundant (similar sequences can give rise to the same
physical structure, within the limits of protein binding resolution
anyway) but is also cross-correlated (you need <pattern-1> here, and
<pattern2> there in order to get the effect).

Although these effects are not completely lost by using a 4 state
representation, they are considerably less obvious.

>>        Then please, give youself a chance, take a look at any modern
>>genetics text book, and be a cross-discipline expert.
>
>It is pretty arrogant to assume that people who work
>with genetic algorithms have no knowledge of genetics!
>Furthermore, different people have different interests,
>and you can't be sure what each person ought to study.
>For example, there is relatively little need for
>someone interested in modelling the evolution of
>populations to have a thorough understanding of, say,
>molecular biology even though it relates to genetics.

Perhaps you could explain why you believe this to be so. I can think
of several arguments against this.

>For those non-biologists interested in getting some
>background on cell physiology and/or genetics, I highly
>recommend "The Living Cell", by Christian de Duve from
>the Scientific American library series.  It is getting
>a bit "old" (1985?) but I assume the basic top-level
>picture it presents is still mostly "correct".  More
>importantly it is scientific without being pedantic and
>boring and yet it is not too "popular".

If you can handle Alberts et al. "Molecular Biology of the Cell",
you'll get more up to date info, nice pictures and lots of references.
Also, see Ben Lewin's "Genes" for a mind-boggling view of just how
complex biological genetics really is. You don't need to understand it
all - just get a feel for the actual complexities.

-- paul (ex-theoretical mol.biologist turned operating systems
	 hacker and a-life private explorer)
-- 
hybrid rather than pure; compromising rather than clean;    | Militant Agnostic
distorted rather than straightforward; ambiguous rather than| I Don't Know
articulated; both-and rather than either-or; the difficult  |   and You Don't
unity of inclusion rather than the easy unity of exclusion. |   Know Either