Genady

DNA is neither a blueprint, nor an instruction set, and I am not a fan of metaphors /analogies. The point is that it, as you say, is not a "map" of the final product. The paradox he describes does not exist, this is my point. He says that it is a paradox, that the final product contains more details than a source used to build it. But this happens all the time, e.g. with algorithms. For example, a number that represents square root of 2 contains infinite number of details (infinite non-periodic sequence of digits), but it is produced by a short simple algorithm, which knows nothing about them.

Oh, the headline writers ... Scientists Find A Hole In Earth’s Centre, Through A Secret Duct Under Panama (indiatimes.com)

@joigus Yes, of course. Regarding the experimental tests or microscopic studies, I wish, but (a) they don't grow in aquarium, as you suspected, and (b) I can't and wouldn't cut a piece off a living coral, as all terrain here from the water surface down to the depth of 200 m is a protected Marine Park. Regarding prevalent direction of light - no such thing at that depth (30+ m). The water is very clear but the light is scattered and comes "from everywhere." Thank you.

Unfortunately, he does just the opposite. He takes this starting point as a correct description and goes to conclude that actual brain structure is a result of learning rather than genes. Of course, the mistake is to see genes as a "blueprint", while they rather are an "instruction set". I was surprised to read this in a very recent book, written by a well-known author.

Regarding this last unanswered issue, I don't know the specific answer, but it is not a puzzle anymore, because we already got asymmetry where it is needed. E.g. since new polyps are added not linearly, but helically, they secrete a new piece of the tube in an asymmetrical way, which can easily lead to a helical tube. And sorry @joigus, I should've clarified it already: regarding a front-back direction for the polyp I kept it in a spirit of the earlier "assumption 2", i.e. back is where the closest neighbor is while front is open. As we know by the "assumption 1", they sense each other.

Stanislas Dehaene is an important psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist, but I think that he is grossly mistaken in genetics, in the following passage from his book, How We Learn: Why Brains Learn Better Than Any Machine . . . for Now: He goes on suggesting his idea for the paradox resolution, but I think that there is no really a paradox, just a mistake in the assumption on how genome works.

Yes. Yes. (They did calculate the amount of uniformly distributed dark energy using GR, as you know.)

Sorry, but this is one of the specific cases where Newton gravity just can't answer the question, but GR can: gravitational effects of an infinite mass distribution. What it means is, that applying Newton in such cases can give a variety of contradictory answers, depending on how you want to calculate a diverging integral.

His book, Naturalist by Edward O. Wilson, was a required reading when I studied Biology. I liked it.

Thank you. Just wanted to clarify this.

Yes, I completely agree. There is one thing left unanswered still, on the next level up rather then down the scale. This scheme explains a helix that polyps make around the tube that they grow on, but it does not explain yet the helix that the tube itself presents to us.

That's correct. There is a theorem that any BH is entirely defined by these three parameters: its mass, charge, and angular momentum. Dark matter falling into a BH would increase the BH mass, but would not be detected otherwise as it doesn't radiate. BTW, we can talk about "flowing into" BH, but not about "passing the event horizon", because nothing ever can be observed passing the event horizon, by an external observer.

Are they thought not necessarily to interact via the weak interaction, or certainly not to interact via the weak interaction?

Ah, I see what you mean. But the baby coral doesn't grow radially but tangentially to the cylinder surface. Here is a scheme (borrowed from the circular polarization of light.) As you move along X, each arrow, representing next baby polyp, is tilted to the right. The result is right-handed helix. (My previous image was only to illustrate a budding process in general, nothing to do with my suggestion.)

For some reason I can't see the attached image. I think what you said is not correct. When you look outside from the cylinder's central axis, you have right and left well defined regardless of your orientation. (And the baby polyp is attached to the outside of the cylinder.)

Here is how I reformulate the puzzle to make it clearer without, hopefully, pushing a specific way of solution: Let's say, the apples are marked and their weights are x1, x2, ... . He takes out the apple #1 and finds that, e.g., x2+x5+x9... = x3+x4+x6... Then he puts the #1 back, takes out #2, and finds that x1+x7...=x3+x4... Etc. 17 times. Each side of each equation has 8 apple weights in it. We are asked to show that x1=x2=x3...

@TheVat I was thinking in the same direction and got an idea of where the chirality leading to that byproduct could start. Although the body of polyp is radially symmetrical, the budding process is not. See illustration below. This provides an opportunity to make a "one-sided liver", like in the @joigusexample above. If the genetic instructions of this coral cause a baby polyp to be a bit tilted say to the right, the next clone will be tilted again to the right, and so on, and voila, we get a helix with the specific chirality. Thanks a lot for the contributions!

A bit OT here: @joigus I also wish experts would contribute, but I didn't have a good experience with them. I emailed a few when this was fresh. Two replied. One just said, they never noticed such a pattern. The other said, they think I am wrong and the corals turn either way. They even attached a few pictures. Guess what? On all the pictures the corals were right-handed! This expert perhaps is a good biologist, but there is some issue with 3D geometry there In fact, they don't cluster thickly - there is half-meter or more between the loops and they don't bend easily. When there is some current, the entire thing just bends the other way, like a windsock.

That is what they can't do. They are radially symmetrical miniature upside-down jellyfish.

I got an idea. Firstly, we can assume that the polyps can chemically sense their neighbors. This thing is quite common and I think such an assumption is safe. Let's call it, Assumption 1.0. Secondly, let's assume that they are programmed by their genes to grow in such a way as to minimize interference with their neighbors in a given neighborhood. This is good for filter feeding. Let's call this, Assumption 2.0. Such a program will lead them to make a linearly arranged colony. This seems like a promising beginning. Now, how do we modify these assumption and add to them to get eventually to the right-handed helix?

I think, my main point of curiosity in this phenomenon is, how these small organisms, each a few mm across and apparently radially symmetrical, genetic clones of each other, determine uniquely a global morphology of the structure 1000 times larger than themselves. Perhaps, it is an emergent feature, but how?

One more piece of information. I've tried to compare my local findings with a global "data" by googling "wire black coral" images. As far as I could identify Cirrhipathes leutkeni in random pictures, I've found all of them right-handed as well. Thank you. I took time to read about them about 10 years ago. Yes, building up of an organism is programmed by genes and their is a strange correspondence between the linear order of these genes on DNA and linear order of body parts of bilateral organisms. However, as far as I remember, in didn't have anything to do with chirality. Plus, coral we discussing is not an organism but a colony of organisms. Plus, it is not bilateral.

It is hard for me to see a chain of causal connections between chirality on molecular level and chirality of a large scale morphology not even of organism but of a colony of organisms. The water here and specifically on that depth is practically still - the movement of about 1 cm/s or less. "Black corals" belong to so-called soft corals. They don't have calcium carbonate skeletons. Their "housing" is made of hardened mix of minerals and proteins. Coriolis effect doesn't appear on such a small scale. Here I have a story to tell. Six years ago I was in Ecuador and visited the Middle of the World, where they have equator line marked on the ground. The guides there gave a bunch of various presentations including the famous one with a water rotating opposite ways while being flashed. They had a tab with a hole, put it on one side of the equator, poured water from a backet and it rotated clockwise. They then relocated the tab to the other side of the equator, poured water - and it rotated counterclockwise. 'Coriolis,' they said. After the presentation I took one of the guides aside and tell her that I know that Coriolis has nothing to do with this and asked her to tell me the secret. She did. The sense of rotation is determined by which side of the hole they pour water to.

Here is a description including its distribution. Not in Kiribati. Correct, the reproduction is not an issue for corals. A few dozens of them are all I could find where I dive. Marine Species Identification Portal : Wire coral - Cirrhipathes leutkeni (species-identification.org)

Happy to answer all specific questions: The size of the locale is a couple of dozens mi/km. Depth about 100+ft /30+m. No strong currents, mostly no currents at all, certainly no prevailing currents. Orientation varies - around the island and along a curved shoreline. The location is practically on equator, about 12N, between the hemispheres