A science question for all of you...

[Umbran]

Been a while since I've read it, and it wasn't the most engaging work of literature...

Okay, maybe it is just me, but I'm looking and I don't know what work of litereature you're referring to.

 

[Storyteller01]

Okay, maybe it is just me, but I'm looking and I don't know what work of litereature you're referring to.

It's been awhile (3 or 4 years). I wish I could remember the name.

I remember the name in american equated to Steven Wolf, but it had been spelled in a variant accent (Stephen Wolve, Wolfe, etc)

 

[s/LaSH]

Just to cast more light on the original base pairs/personality question:

Humans are something like 98% genetically similar to the chimpanzee.

Therefore, it seems that 98% of a human's DNA is unrelated to their personality. Considering that both pools (that 98% and the 2% unique to our species) are composed of the same base pairs, and that the 98% can be assumed to be a solid, unchanging block, we can assume that either the 98% is very evenly distributed so as not to introduce imbalances in personality type, or that (far more likely) it's unrelated.

Further, all DNA exists as pairs of AT or CG in chromosomes (they may exist in other forms elsewhere). The other pairings (AC/AG/TC/TG) don't work. So you really only have two types of DNA in your genes, because where you find one type you'll find the other.

However, that thing about the 'four-based language' is very interesting. Very interesting indeed.

 

[Mercule]

Four base pairs, either four or sixteen (four times four) "basic" personality types, four humours (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, black bile), four elements (earth, fire, air, water). Any more fours that either are now or were at one point key to understanding the world as we know it?

Four Beatles.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Four fundamental forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational.

Three families of fundamental particles, each containing FOUR members (lepton, lepton-neutrino, and two quarks)...and a FOURTH family of fundamental particles known as the force particles with FOUR members, each corresponding to a fundamental force.

I think we're onto something here...I'll call the newspapers!

 

[Umbran]

Humans are something like 98% genetically similar to the chimpanzee.

Therefore, it seems that 98% of a human's DNA is unrelated to their personality.

I don't think we can make that assumption. Genes don't work in isolation, they work in cooperation. It may be that most of the genes that relate to personality (if any do - but let's not get into nature/nurture arguments right now) lie in the 98%. All that's required is that something in the 2% have a profound effect upon how other genes act. And given the number and quality of differences between humans and chimps, I think it is a pretty safe bet that something in that 2% is having profound effects.

Four fundamental forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational.

Except as you get to high energy, where the math has been reduced to two fundamental forces. And they're working on making it only one.

Three families of fundamental particles, each containing FOUR members (lepton, lepton-neutrino, and two quarks)...and a FOURTH family of fundamental particles known as the force particles with FOUR members, each corresponding to a fundamental force.

Again, except at high energies. There is nothing in the math that prohibits the creation of more quark/lepton families at higher energy. And the above reduction in the number of fundamental forces rears it's ugly head again too.

In general, there are only four when it's not particularly hot out there, or we aren't moving all that fast

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I don't think we can make that assumption. Genes don't work in isolation, they work in cooperation. It may be that most of the genes that relate to personality (if any do - but let's not get into nature/nurture arguments right now) lie in the 98%. All that's required is that something in the 2% have a profound effect upon how other genes act. And given the number and quality of differences between humans and chimps, I think it is a pretty safe bet that something in that 2% is having profound effects.

Yes, considering that only tiny changes in gene function are required to alter the developmental genes that control growth and development of systems. If a tiny number of codons makes the difference between a human skull and a chimp skull (and this seems to be the case), those few codons also control everything that follows, including things like brain size, ability to articulate language, facial expression, etc. Animal genomes are like elaborate domino setups. Change a few things near the beginning, and everything down the line behaves differently.

Except as you get to high energy, where the math has been reduced to two fundamental forces. And they're working on making it only one.

Shh! I almost had them going. Then you...argh!