Re: [asa] Re: information, complexity, environment -- was ]Biologic Institute

Rich wrote:

> There is also an implicit assumption that organismal complexity is the
> result of DNA complexity. That these didn't correlate caused the C- value
> and G-value paradoxes. In yesterday's PNAS Stumpf et al found something
> where the complexity actually does match organismal complexity, namely
> the so-called protein-protein interactome.
>

So true, Rich. A physicist's tendency to oversimplify (the classic spherical
cow) can miss an awful lot of good stuff. But sometimes it does help to
oversimplify in order to put things into perspective. I would suggest that
the complexity of an embryo is reflected by the amount of all biochemical
material, not just DNA. That this does not correlate to organismal
complexity is very interesting but not surprising. The full extent of
potential organismal complexity is never expressed.

Let's try that in a different language. Given a string of DNA, one could in
theory calculate the number of possible proteins for which that string could
code. That is the cellular complexity, or potential organismal complexity.
The number of proteins actually formed by that string is vastly smaller and
represents the actual organismal complexity.

To me, that means that actual organismal complexity is so much smaller than
the potential, that the C-value paradox isn't puzzling but shows that the
exhibited complexity depends to first order on factors other than the amount
of genetic material.

Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed May 14 11:54:13 2008