Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> I don't think that is generally accepted. The genome can be seen as a
> bunch of data (raw bits), you must add context to transform that into
> usefull information. When a living thing reproduces that context is
> readily available: the parent(s). Often something must be transferred
> that is not part of the genome, like for instance intesinal bacteria.
> And genome is not a clear cut definition: is mitochndrial DNA part of
> the human genome or not? And after the succesfull hatching you sometimes
> need to inject some more information to raise the product to something
> 'usefull'. In the case of humans this often <fame prevention / self
> sensoring>.

There are also examples in nature where offspring are abandoned to develop
on their own at the single cell fertilized egg stage.  This proves that, at
least for some species, all the information to make another organism of that
species is contained in that fertilized egg.  There is definitely more to an
egg than just a genome, but it does hold out the possibility that the genome
is the information and the egg just the mechanics of realizing it.  The same
argument applies to plant seeds.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist