As always, there are a lot of angles and subtle points where the answer to your proposition stands and falls with slight interpretational variances of what you mean exactly.
DNA on its own cannot reproduce, however that is not a function of missing data so much as of missing the actual apparatus (the “data” of which is already encoded in the DNA). Note: I’m lumping epigenetic and assorted information storage together with “DNA”.
In terms of “data”, the question you should ask yourself is this: Could an alien with unlimited resources reconstitute a human being from solely its genetic code? How much additional information would be necessary? This doesn’t refer just to the cellular details so much as to the environmental habitat as well, from pressure levels in the macroenvironment to the general cytokine soup in the microenvironment. Much of that is shared across species and organisms, does that count?
In short, are you interested in the complexity of an organism given an empty tape on a UTM, or of an organism given the biosphere of the planet earth (minus that organism/species) already provided?
Also, DNA is not well compressed at all. Refer to the codon table. With 4 to the 3rd power (=64) different possible states per triplet, those only map to a paltry 22 results. Talk about redundancy! Not to mention that you referred to the genome, not merely the exome (which has a higher information density). Although non-transcribed areas also retain some functionality, it could probably be functionally losslessly compressed even more effectively.
Could an alien with unlimited resources reconstitute a human being from solely its genetic code?
Does “its” genetic code include, say, mitochondrial DNA?
Also, DNA is not well compressed at all. Refer to the codon table. With 4 to the 3rd power (=64) different possible states per triplet, those only map to a paltry 22 results. Talk about redundancy!
Er, in the presence of mutation, you want redundancy to continue functioning, which is relevant to whether or not it’s “well” compressed.
Er, in the presence of mutation, you want redundancy to continue functioning, which is relevant to whether or not it’s “well” compressed.
In context, “well compressed” meant “highly compressed”. It’s true there’s a reason for DNA not being highly compressed, but that doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t.
In terms of “data”, the question you should ask yourself is this: Could an alien with unlimited resources reconstitute a human being from solely its genetic code? How much additional information would be necessary?
Yes this is pretty much what I was trying to find out. And also asking if people are aware of this information gap—and if that gap exists.
As always, there are a lot of angles and subtle points where the answer to your proposition stands and falls with slight interpretational variances of what you mean exactly.
DNA on its own cannot reproduce, however that is not a function of missing data so much as of missing the actual apparatus (the “data” of which is already encoded in the DNA). Note: I’m lumping epigenetic and assorted information storage together with “DNA”.
In terms of “data”, the question you should ask yourself is this: Could an alien with unlimited resources reconstitute a human being from solely its genetic code? How much additional information would be necessary? This doesn’t refer just to the cellular details so much as to the environmental habitat as well, from pressure levels in the macroenvironment to the general cytokine soup in the microenvironment. Much of that is shared across species and organisms, does that count?
In short, are you interested in the complexity of an organism given an empty tape on a UTM, or of an organism given the biosphere of the planet earth (minus that organism/species) already provided?
Also, DNA is not well compressed at all. Refer to the codon table. With 4 to the 3rd power (=64) different possible states per triplet, those only map to a paltry 22 results. Talk about redundancy! Not to mention that you referred to the genome, not merely the exome (which has a higher information density). Although non-transcribed areas also retain some functionality, it could probably be functionally losslessly compressed even more effectively.
Does “its” genetic code include, say, mitochondrial DNA?
Er, in the presence of mutation, you want redundancy to continue functioning, which is relevant to whether or not it’s “well” compressed.
In context, “well compressed” meant “highly compressed”. It’s true there’s a reason for DNA not being highly compressed, but that doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t.
Yes this is pretty much what I was trying to find out. And also asking if people are aware of this information gap—and if that gap exists.
Pretty sure that’s a no. Source: I’m a Plant Biology grad student. CellBioGuy could probably be more definitive.