[Nebullis]

Edsheppa talked briefly about frame shifts - just with a frame shift, a single gene can potentially code for three different proteins. So even if it turns out that we "only" have 30,000 genes or so, if each gene pulls triple duty, that would come close to explaining the apparent "gap" between the number of genes and the complexity of the organism.

The genotype-phenotype map that js1138 is talking about is something completely different. A frameshift mutation changes the genotype but does not change the relationship it has to phenotype. Phenotype is determined by a number of post-transcription events such as RNA-editing, alternative exon combinations, post-translational alterations, etc.

[general_re]

I may have misread his post, but in any case, I meant to leave aside the issure of mutation altogether and discuss functionality of genes. What I wanted to get at was that it's long been a dead letter that one gene = one phenotypical trait, and it's also a dead letter that one gene = one protein, since with a simple frame shift, a single gene can produce mutiple proteins by changing the offset. And, of course, further functionality can come about, as I understand it, by changes in higher-order structures, insofar as the genome changes its tertiary or quaternary structure in order to restrict access to, or further expose, a part of itself...

[js1138]

You guys are far beyond me. I'm just glad you haven't nuked me for talking beyond my realm of competence.

The central question I'm trying to address is whether design of living organisms is even possible, barring cut and try. Is it possible, in principal, to predict the effect of a novel mutation? And assuming you could predict the structural effect, could you also predict the effect on fertility and viability in a constantly fluctuating environment?

It's one thing to say that goddidit, quite another to argue for a designer that is not omnipotent.