Talk:Genetic Information/Overview of Sequence Statistics

We have to be realistic

We cannot simply write about some tribes in Africa and think that we are advancing the field of molecular genetics.

Biometry is a big thing. It is about measuring life on Earth. It is not a joke. We cannot pretend that by mentioning the many tribes on  the continent of Africa, their myths and proverbs on behaviors toward other people’s children will do the trick for us. And then to even claim that, somehow, we have established the origin of probability used in computing information and insist that it comes from some African tribe is to stretch the truth beyond imagination. Let us be realistic.

Numbers in sequence statistics are the number of possible sequences, they are the solutions over time that increase geometrically in  either or both of possible  states and time, where time is the number of events. Thus solution = states^events. Shanon and Weaver(1949) and even Denbigh and Denbigh (1985) have mentioned several advantages to relate information to logarithm.

We should only accept the African routes of genetic information if this relation of information to logarithm is established within the African mathematical foundation. Simple and clear!
 * The Acceptable Plan
 * I agree with you and accept the plan showing African mathematical arts as the origin of genetic information. I will show this by working on the origin of probability and information for equally likely outcomes. Odhiambo 23:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Unacceptable Proposition

I share your reservations about the way in which tribes in Africa have been referred to without adequate detail or example. Biometry is not only a big thing, it is most likely one of the oldest branches of human intellectual enquiry. I caution however against your statement that it stretches the truth beyond imagination to say that the origin of probability (theory? practice?) could have originated in an African tribe. Ask yourself why you believe that so improbable? All sorts of things create need for probability theory (he loves me, he loves me not...). What does it take to develop a probability theory (Shakespearean English?)? What does it take to record it? A feather? Mice?

Ironically, writing about tribes in Africa is the biggest area of potential growth and enquiry in the field of molecular genetics/genomics right now (2008). Given that human genetic diversity is highly concentrated in Africa. African tribes probably contain much of the mystery of how the human genome evolved-- a horizontal recording of the sequence of the ascent (descent?) of human kind, so why not human knowledge? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza).

You might also recognise that "Shanon and Weaver(1949) and Denbigh and Denbigh (1985)" are members of a mysterious tribe (Information Theorists), complete with publication date 'scarifications', as far as the vast majority of humankind are concerned. Note that this is not to say they are not influential-- it is just invisible to most people. Same for the Luo or any other African tribe as far as you and I are concerned-- their influence on our world may be just as invisible. Relatively few 'outsiders' have actually investigated what knowledge exists in African tribes, how it is encoded etc, but that is not good enough grounds for assuming that a well developed Luo probablility theory is beyond the stretch of any imagination (remember this is a global forum!).

My own understanding of the Genetic Code-- which forms the centerpiece of Genetic Information and Probability -- is that it is the same sort of situation. If you told a multi-subunit conformationally dynamic protein that it was originally encoded in DNA it would probably just laugh at you:-

" What? All my 4-dimensionality encoded in that tangled one- dimensional string?"

Isn't that the central problem of molecular biology today? The genetic code translates between two languages, which is the same as translating between two sets of sequence probabilities. In the case of life on earth, as my little imaginary protein comment suggests, it also relates two sets of dimensionalities. I am not familiar enough with Shannon to know if this is all Information Theory 101, but it still seems to be molecular biology 601 since we still insist on thinking of genetics as a string of letters on paper instead of real 4 dimensional molecules embedded in a resin of structured water.

I will add some of my own thoughts about African tribes, ancient egypt, probability, Shannon, Rumer and others now that I have found this rather interesting forum. eluem_blyden@yahoo.com