[HN Gopher] We're not going to run out of new anatomy anytime soon
___________________________________________________________________
We're not going to run out of new anatomy anytime soon
Author : jfil
Score : 177 points
Date : 2024-09-12 02:35 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (svpow.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (svpow.com)
| jamesy0ung wrote:
| Link seems to be broken, Firefox is displaying raw JSON when I
| visit it.
| jraby3 wrote:
| It's working for me.
| roca wrote:
| The incredible complexity of anatomy is even more amazing
| considering
|
| * all the structures grow from a single cell
|
| * somehow it's all encoded in DNA (only 6 billion bits in humans,
| which has to also build cells and their ultracomplex machinery)
|
| * this all had to evolve using only a very noisy objective
| function
| dotancohen wrote:
| > only 6 billion bits in humans
|
| That's under 1 GB - it might all fit on a standard compact
| disc.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > compact disc
|
| It's probably not far off being easier to read DNA than a CD.
| And it's surely less frustrating.
| semitones wrote:
| I wonder if saying that "it's all encoded in DNA (which is only
| 6 billion bits)" is accurate. Every time life (considering only
| humans for now, to simplify) arises, in addition to the DNA
| (the "code"), you also have the rest of the first cell (the
| zygote), which already has an "expression" of that code (which
| may contain additional information beyond what is already in
| the code), + the entire environment of the mother (which
| obviously provides additional information).
|
| This makes me think that we need far more than just 6 billion
| bits to actually encode the entire process of new life
| formation (each instance always piggy-backs off the previous,
| and always provides processes/information).
| rolisz wrote:
| Michael Levin has some awesome experiments where he screws
| around with the bioelectric fields of planetaria and he gets
| them to grow two heads and no tail, while being genetically
| identical to a normal one.
| elric wrote:
| One of my old classmates' area of research is applying
| electric stimuli to various types of cells. Apparently the
| right amount at the right time can briefly allow foreign
| material to pass through the cell wall unimpeded. The
| complexity of a single cell is insane, that of a complex
| organism is way beyond insane.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| I think you meant cell membrane rather than cell wall?
|
| (There is a contrarian theory that says that the cell
| membrane does not exist at all, look up Gilbert Ling. So
| it's no surprise that things can move in and out of the
| cell under certain conditions.)
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Planaria. (Yeah, I am a pedant sometimes.) Also, frogs,
| tadpoles, axolotls. Truly a wonderful mind. I admire him,
| not least for his ability to do really weird and important
| science outside the usual "don't do anything extraordinary"
| boundaries set by ossified grant committees.
| Gooblebrai wrote:
| I thank you. I was looking for planetaria and I was
| confused
| rolisz wrote:
| _facepalm_ Thank you. That was not pedantic at all, I
| made an early morning mistake.
| dmd wrote:
| And you keep them in the planetarium, right?
| wolpoli wrote:
| You are telling me that we do not have a way to clean build
| human from DNA source. That's a real continuity risk.
| heckelson wrote:
| The battle for reproducible builds continues
| Aerbil313 wrote:
| We need purely functional nanomachinery to create every
| embrionic molecule from element atoms, and a declarative
| physical language to combine them in the right way to
| create a zygote.
| emptiestplace wrote:
| What if, as human consciousness is an emergent property of
| complexity, so too are humans and DNA itself? Could it be
| that, just as consciousness arises from the intricate
| networks within the brain, life and its fundamental
| components--like DNA--emerge from an even deeper layer of
| complexity in the universe, suggesting that our very
| existence is a product of systems far beyond our current
| understanding?
| gcr wrote:
| If true, alien first contact scenarios get a lot more
| interesting.
|
| Someone should write a short story about that.
| bgun wrote:
| We do, but it's messy and usually involves a few years of
| courtship, followed by one to three decades of raising &
| educating the resulting human to anything resembling a
| useful model for comparison.
| gcr wrote:
| No, the claim is much stronger than that: that the zygote
| itself encodes necessary information that isn't captured
| in DNA. Put another way, long after humans are extinct,
| the claim is that if aliens could download our DNA source
| code somehow, they still wouldn't be able to build humans
| without replicating the zygote's internal structures
| exactly. We'd come out as super deformed or something.
|
| The claim is biological, not sociological.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| e.g. imagine being given some source code and being told
| to compile/execute it but you're not given any hardware.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Not only that, but you're not even given the compiler. If
| all you have is the DNA (even if you had the
| mitochondrial DNA too), you have source code for a
| language no one knows with no compiler.
|
| Or, more accurately, it's like having binary machine code
| for an unknown ISA with no information about the CPU, and
| no example CPU.
| Thiez wrote:
| Perhaps the first generation would be deformed but
| second-gen (if they hypothetically get that far) should
| be much closer. You still need the mitochondrial DNA as
| well.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Well, first of all, they wouldn't be able to build a
| single functioning cell if all they had was DNA (and even
| if they had mitochondrial DNA too). Most organelles
| divide independently of the nucleus, and there is no
| reason to think that DNA encodes anything about their
| fundamental structure. Even if some changes in genes can
| effect some changes in the organelles, that doesn't mean
| that the genes specify every detail of the organelle.
|
| Also, even if we accepted that DNA fully specifies how a
| cell can create an identical copy of the cell that
| contains it, that doesn't mean that it specifies how to
| create a cell from scratch. The "instructions" in DNA
| could very well depend critically on details of the
| current cell. For example, the DNA could specify se thing
| like "take 1% of the substance secreted in organelle A
| and mix it with 90% water and 9% the substance secreted
| by organelle B". This instruction is perfectly good for
| specifying a copy of the current cell, and perfectly
| useless if you don't have the original cell for which it
| is meant.
|
| This sort of thing could very well apply at the level of
| the whole fetus. Details of the uterus and other parts of
| the mother organism may well be critical parts of the
| "program" described by the DNA. For example, it's easy to
| imagine that the early fetus follows instructions like
| "let this much fluid pass through the umbilical chord",
| or "grow horizontally until you find this much pH
| difference between the extremeties" or whatever other
| instructions that are only useful in the context of an
| existing functioning mother organism.
|
| And even beyond the individual, you would have a big
| problem recreating the species to allow for a second
| generation to exist at all. In particular, even if you
| had a whole living healthy female mammal, you would have
| no information at all for how to create a male of the
| species, so no way to create sperm cells, so no way to
| perpetuate the species. So the DNA of a female mammal
| doesn't contain information for how to make more of the
| species. And if all you had was a male organism, you
| would lack the information probably encoded in the living
| female that I was discussing earlier.
|
| As a side note, this problem would not exist for birds,
| where the female bird does have both male and female DNA.
| delecti wrote:
| I mean, is that really true when the "we" is a group of 8
| billion, about half of whom at any time can contribute to a
| build server?
| bregma wrote:
| Mathematically it's true. Anything that can be enumerated
| (that is, has an ontological mapping with the set of
| whole numbers) can be interpreted as input to some
| function which can be evaluated to some result also with
| an ontological mapping with the set of whole numbers. In
| other words, the entire human population could be a part
| of some program calculating the answer to some universal
| question, which may be about life, the universe, and
| everything. In fact, the answer may already be known.
| We're just one big server with massively parallel
| operation.
|
| What we don't know is what that function is. Put
| differently, what is the question?
| admissionsguy wrote:
| > you also have the rest of the first cell (the zygote),
| which already has an "expression" of that code
|
| It's called maternal effect
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_effect)
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I think they meant something even more basic, and common to
| all cells: you can't make a new cell without an existing
| living functioning cell. We have no firm idea of how the
| first cells developed, but all of the cells we know of
| today come from the division of another cell, and we have
| never observed anything remotely like a new cell forming
| pit of a puddle of all the required substances and DNA.
| moi2388 wrote:
| You might want to look up Dr.Michael Levin.
|
| He is studying exactly this. He found that when developing,
| cells move and grow in a particular direction. But when an
| obstacle is placed in their way, they move around it to
| somehow still end up where they're supposed to.
|
| DNA is not all of the encoding. Even cells appear to have
| some form of navigation or space search capabilities.
| fellowmartian wrote:
| His work is mind-blowing and completely upturned my
| perception of biology.
| codesnik wrote:
| chemical gradients?
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| Why do miscarriages occur? They are frequent, so they seem
| to be an essential feature of pregnancy.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| I imagine from an evolutionary perspective, a false
| positive of the fetus bringing harm to the mother is
| preferable over the long term for increasing long term
| reproductive survival.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| The fetus's liveliness check failed
| im3w1l wrote:
| Miscarriages must occur because our DNA is constantly
| mutating. Some of those mutations will be so harmful that
| the new organism cannot even survive until birth.
|
| In addition to those unavoidable ones, there can also be
| things going wrong by accident (e.g. the pregnant woman
| suffer physical injury which kills the fetus).
| pas wrote:
| lack of immune tolerance in the mother.
|
| for example (pre)eclampsia. we still don't know WTF is
| going on exactly (but it's basically abnormal blood
| vessel formation between the fetus and the uterus), and a
| few decades ago it was basically guaranteed loss of the
| fetus or the mother (or both), in about half a percent of
| pregnancies.
|
| nowadays thanks to medical science it's a hundred-times
| more manageable.
| joshuahedlund wrote:
| Yes, I recently read the book _The Master Builder_ by Alfonso
| Arias which gets into some of the detailed pre-requisites
| provided by existing cells. (it's also why restoring extinct
| species may be harder than expected even knowing their full
| genetic sequence)
| thfuran wrote:
| At the very least, epigenetics are also partially heritable.
| dekhn wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_effect The egg
| contains mRNA or protein created by the mother that affects
| the child's phentotype.
|
| It's unclear how much those non-genomic components affect
| organismal phenotypes; presumably, there is some minimal
| collection of factors that would suffice to allow us to
| construct an artificial egg cell that is viable for
| reproduction.
| TZubiri wrote:
| Disclaimer. I'm not a great biologist.
|
| Couldn't this be proven by growing mammals in petri dishes?
|
| If the entire information is encoded in DNA, then the fetus
| would grow fine.
|
| If however, the fetus needs to be in a womb to develop, then
| there must be information (and resources) that need to be
| sent from the mother to the baby in a sort of quine fashion.
|
| Consider a Java compiler or python interpreter, they are
| themselves written in the target language, unless we are
| talking about early version. So you already need a java
| compiler to compile Java, the code for the compiler does not
| hold all of the necessary information, as you need a mother
| compiler to execute it.
|
| Which part of the target is in the code and which in the
| interpreter/compiler?
|
| A thought experiment would be a language where a built in
| statement compile() compiles code according to
| specifications. Thus the code for a compiler would simply be
| compile().
|
| My best guess is that fetuses can only grow inside a
| functioning human, and that the information in DNA is not
| sufficient, you need a functioning specimen to grow another
| specimen.
| 9dev wrote:
| I wonder if it's actually more similar to procedural
| generation, based on a seed value, that reliably recreates the
| same complex output that isn't entirely described by the seed
| alone. In this case, the DNA would just serve as input to a
| myriad of algorithms that yield a fully working cell. A single
| base pair change may lead to a mind-bogglingly long chain of
| side effects that result in a third arm, or really just nothing
| at all.
| tialaramex wrote:
| > only 6 billion bits in humans
|
| A 27-state two value Busy Beaver can implement "Give a counter-
| example to Goldbach's Conjecture" - if there are none the
| program never halts. We can recognise that, and say "Oh dear"
| but it gets us no closer to an answer. Six billion isn't even
| in the right ballpark, our ability to understand the meaning of
| every self-acting machine extends maybe to six or seven bits if
| we're very smart.
| refurb wrote:
| > somehow it's all encoded in DNA (only 6 billion bits in
| humans, which has to also build cells and their ultracomplex
| machinery)
|
| One has to be cautious to not assume that the only data DNA
| holds is in base pairs.
|
| We know that secondary factors like inter- and intra-strand
| interactions or DNA-histone interaction encodes information as
| well.
|
| A good analogy is a book. While it is made up of individual
| letters, the combinations build to words, which build to
| sentences, which build to ideas, which can interact with other
| ideas (sometimes in other chapters!) to create a complexity
| beyond just the combination of letters would suggest.
|
| That's not even getting into the temporal aspects of DNA
| expression.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| I believe DNA is a compression algorithm beyond our current
| understanding, and the 6 billion bits is a post-compression
| size.
| thih9 wrote:
| > 6 billion bits in humans
|
| ~750 megabytes (unit conversion via google)
| BurningFrog wrote:
| > _all the structures grow from a single cell_
|
| Two cells: Egg and sperm
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| ...which merge into a single zygote cell.
| Metacelsus wrote:
| A fertilized egg (zygote) is one cell.
| lubujackson wrote:
| A crappy, self-improving function with a decent feedback loop
| (survival) can get pretty far given 100s of millions of years
| with hundreds of million (or trillions) of concurrent
| experiments running at the same time. The time scale of life is
| the hardest element to comprehend.
| wonnage wrote:
| I don't think it's true that DNA actually encodes an entire
| organism. Leaving all discussion of epigenetics aside, the
| proteins produced from DNA can basically do anything, including
| modifying DNA. Maybe we could think of large portions of DNA as
| simply bindings to shared libraries (i.e, the proteins). Or
| like a package manifest and build script for life rather than
| the code itself
| MattGaiser wrote:
| If I understand his three groups correctly, he's basically saying
| that one of the big bottlenecks is that nobody is looking full
| time.
|
| Basically, nobody has the job of discovering human anatomy except
| as a side hustle or byproduct.
|
| I'm quite surprised at that. That's a remarkable area to not have
| full time researchers in.
| Validark wrote:
| It's sad to think about how little of our resources are
| dedicated to work like this. Although I enjoyed the Marvel
| movies growing up, it would be nice if similar funding could be
| found for a project like the author describes (and, of course,
| you could have a sort of documentary showing people what they
| discovered).
| amelius wrote:
| I think he missed at least one group: pathologists.
| twic wrote:
| Is it? How would anyone make money or fame out of it?
|
| The way our scientific establishment works now is that you are
| rewarded for discovering things which fit into and shed new
| light on our existing web of understanding, not for things
| which are completely new and unconnected. I don't think this is
| entirely bad - science is useful because it's a densely
| connected web rather than a bag of unrelated facts. But it does
| mean that very little value is attached to observations of
| weird new things that don't fit in anywhere.
|
| Back when I was a scientist, I was studying a known structure
| in the cytoskeleton. By chance, some of the cells I prepared
| went funny, and produced a radically different structure that I
| hadn't seen before, and couldn't find any mention of in the
| literature. I showed my supervisor, who basically said "so
| what?". On their own, this new structure was useless to a
| career scientist, because you can't say anything about what it
| is, what it does, why it's important, or how it connects to
| what anyone else is publishing about.
|
| (It turned out this structure had been seen before, and
| published a few times, but still, nobody really knows what it's
| all about)
| elric wrote:
| That was a super interesting read. Another factor that's probably
| missing is a weird form of prudeness/sexism. I remember reading
| articles years ago about new discoveries about the clitoris, and
| thinkig "how the fuck was this missed", or the debate around the
| existance of the G-spot, or the existence (or not) of female
| ejaculate. I suspect there's more female anatomy left to be
| discovered/described than male.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| I also think it is great to call out that not all 'missing'
| things like this are a conspiracy, it is just inefficiencies,
| or competing goals of different groups.
|
| "No shadowy Illuminati group deliberately made this decision,
| but as a civilization we have collectively 'decided' that three
| groups of people would get to peer inside the human body, and
| they'd all be hobbled."
| elric wrote:
| Oh indeed, I don't think there's a shadowy cabal suppressing
| the knowledge of the existence of our third eye or anything
| like that. But in the past, the long arm of the catholic
| church certainly had a chilling effect on some research.
|
| Like the guy who built some of the first microscopes and
| discovered the sperm in semen, he wrote to the scientific
| community to discuss the discovery, but made sure to include
| that the semen he used was "what was left" after he copulated
| with his wife. Wouldn't want to give anyone the idea that he
| had masturbated, heaven forfend!
| valval wrote:
| You're looking at this from a point of view with inherent bias,
| that has no guarantee of being lesser in degree than the ones
| that produced the literature.
| chowells wrote:
| You're looking at this from the point of view that bias is
| inherently bad. It's not. Biases do not need to be "lesser in
| degree" to allow adding something new to a conversation. They
| only need to be _different_ from existing ones.
|
| You know, diversity improves results.
| elric wrote:
| Hmm, I spent some time thinking about this comment, and I
| still don't get your point. Does my bias invalidate my claim?
| I mean I don't have any hard evidence that this is happening,
| but from a historical point is makes sense to me. If you
| disagree, it would be helpful to point out why, rather than
| to call out my bias.
| nntwozz wrote:
| The appendix also comes to mind, being told it was useless for
| so long and now evidence suggests it has important functions
| for the immune system.
| hiisukun wrote:
| In addition to the appendix, my go to example of this is my
| friend's favourite organ: the Thymus [1]! If you've heard of
| "T-Cells" you indirectly know about it.
|
| The interesting thing is that it is in a human when they are
| born, grows until puberty, then gets smaller and smaller until
| it can be quite small and difficult to detect in a grown adult.
|
| I can imagine medical explorers cutting open dead 40 year olds
| in the year 1900, probably not finding any obvious organ there
| -- while perhaps cutting open dead children may have been a lot
| less common (and perhaps distasteful). If you did find
| something there, you would not assume an important organ
| present in a child and essential for their immune system would
| shrink and almost go away.
|
| It would be more likely to be labelled nothing, an abnormal
| growth, or even a cause for death or illness (pressure on the
| heart/lungs!).
| bregma wrote:
| I dunno. Comparative anatomy was a thing then and the
| anatomist may even have been fond of sweetbreads. They were
| still popular on menus in Paris when I was there a few months
| ago. It's possible they were more notable for their absence
| in adult humans.
| dennis_jeeves2 wrote:
| >my friend's favourite organ
|
| Woody Allen's second favorite organ is the brain :
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngizj5FIcjo
| twic wrote:
| Although, as it happens, the thymus was known at least as far
| back as the ancient Greeks:
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29858845/
| dekhn wrote:
| The thymus is amazing... I ignored it for a long time then
| saw an amazing seminar. The thymus plays an important role in
| training the immune system: it expresses cells similar to
| cells all over the body, and then "educates" T-cells to avoid
| attacking those. Failures of the thymus often lead to
| autoimmune disorders.
| jac241 wrote:
| Maybe, but I think more likely is the time factor for med
| students. There's really only time to find the major structures
| implicated in disease. Surgeons also not likely dissecting
| around the clitoris much. Wouldn't want to risk injury
| obviously.
| keepamovin wrote:
| The author says that no one's gonna fund such work, but I really
| think the stated multibillionaires should fund it.
|
| biological anatomy makes it pretty clear that biological bodies
| are complex layering of biopolymer sheets that perform incredible
| mechanical, biochemical and other subtle energetic processes.
|
| We could learn a lot about the robots we hope to build by
| intricate studies of how Animal anatomy has really perfected the
| art of efficient and compact mechanical motion and advanced
| functions.
|
| In a sense, the sophistication of the dense layering is akin to
| how modern processor architectures, motherboard and fully
| integrated circuits SOCs inside compact devices are kind of
| composite materials of fused layers of nevertheless separate
| components.
|
| I believe this kind of work really should be funded.
| verisimi wrote:
| This is a great case study in how all science is hobbled.
|
| Define categories, silo information - who will ever recognise
| something unusual under their very nose?
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| I think human species real advantage is human hands, they are so
| precise, for me that's what made the difference
| atombender wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean by this comment. Was there a time
| when you didn't have hands?
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| yes, when we were still bacterias or a bit later, even
| monkeys hands are not always super precise
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I sometimes wonder if crows would be able to build a
| civilization if they had human hands.
|
| They may be about as smart as australopithecus, so there could
| be an evolutionary feedback loop: tools-brain-better tools-
| better brain.
|
| But you can only do so much with a beak.
| hinkley wrote:
| In the Uplift books dolphins are given prosthetic arms.
| That's already half future tech and you'd have to miniaturize
| them for crows. No way to control them yet, in either case.
| out_of_protocol wrote:
| Crow's brains are very good at what they do because their
| version of human's neocortex is in the center of the brain.
| And this is the reason why crow's brains can't scale up,
| there no enough space to grow "thinking" part of brain
| fooker wrote:
| Human hands are marvelously complicated, we don't appreciate
| that much as we see our hands everyday.
|
| Interestingly, a stark reminder for this came when image
| generating models could generate everything except realistic
| hands.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| Hands are notoriously difficult for human artists to draw as
| well; this is perhaps one reason so few make the attempt
| nowadays.
| FredPret wrote:
| And living above ground. Whales and octopuses might be geniuses
| but they'll never have a tech tree because they can't melt
| metal
| dwighttk wrote:
| Ant that's just the structures, next is the purpose
| dannyxertify wrote:
| There is still too many things to be discovered and hope AI will
| give us a full understanding of it
| btrettel wrote:
| I just skimmed the article, but it reminds me of something from
| my own PhD in fluid dynamics. I worked in liquid jets/sprays,
| basically, when a stream of liquid flows from a nozzle and breaks
| into droplets. Nearly everyone has seen this in some form.
|
| I published a "regime diagram" improving the existing
| categorization of types of liquid jet breakup. There were a lot
| of changes from the status quo, but one that strikes me as
| particularly sad was the addition of a new regime that I called
| "turbulent Rayleigh". Every time men pee, they create a turbulent
| Rayleigh liquid jet. Yet this was a mostly foreign concept to
| spray researchers! You can find a few papers that identify what
| they view as an anomaly, but the papers seem to be mostly ignored
| and they don't go beyond saying something like "Something here is
| weird, future researchers should look into this". I did my share,
| making a theoretical model of the regime, showing how it's
| fundamentally different from the conventional _laminar_ Rayleigh
| regime. Most spray researchers would consider a "Rayleigh" jet
| to be inherently laminar, but that's a misconception.
|
| The reason why this happened is that liquid jet/sprays research
| is heavily biased towards fuel sprays, which rarely ever have
| this regime. You basically need a long tube (or something
| similar) to reduce the Reynolds number for turbulence to appear,
| which usually doesn't happen in fuel spray nozzles. Fuel sprays
| tend to have lower surface tension and higher viscosity than
| water/pee too, which makes seeing a turbulent Rayleigh jet even
| harder.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| Ok, honest question:
|
| Is this why guys have so much trouble peeing only into the
| toilet bowl when standing?
| btrettel wrote:
| That's a problem of aim, not spray formation, and thus beyond
| my expertise. The Rayleigh regimes produce large droplets
| (mainly diameters similar to the orifice) and not a finer
| spray that could go everywhere.
|
| Also: Peeing into only the bowl won't necessarily minimize
| the mess. Air gets "entrained" into the water and that
| creates splatter. Best practice is to target the porcelain
| inside the bowl (just above the water line) and adjust the
| distance so that the stream has broken up less as droplets
| will create more splatter than a solid stream.
| saagarjha wrote:
| You could also sit down.
| Unbefleckt wrote:
| I'm genuinely curious as to why this is, as someone who has
| never had trouble aiming or covered the seat in piss.
| mandmandam wrote:
| There are different reasons for this.
|
| The biggest one is that many guys are just vile. Sad but
| true. They don't even _try_ to aim, because someone else will
| clean it; and they don 't even wash their hands after.
|
| The next biggest is that sometimes where you point isn't
| where the stream goes, whether from a random pinch in the
| tube or a proprioception error.
|
| And sometimes the stream is split, and it's not entirely
| predictable when that will happen.
|
| Spray?? Never had an issue like that. Can't speak for
| everyone though.
| tgbugs wrote:
| As part of an NIH consortium I work with two teams that are
| collecting multi-scale anatomical data on the human vagus nerve
| with one of the objectives being to start to get a handle on the
| variability between individuals. The variability that the
| experimental teams are seeing is beyond anything I expected,
| though admittedly my assumptions were naive. The branching
| structure and routing of the nerves is basically unique per human
| and we are in the processes of determining whether there are
| invariant rules (e.g. for branch ordering) that apply across all
| individuals. And that is at the level of gross anatomy. So we
| aren't even done with gross anatomy, despite many biologists
| thinking that the foundations are complete and have been since
| the 16th century. Turns out that if you want to be able to apply
| our knowledge of gross anatomy for more complex clinical use
| cases we need significantly more data about basic variability in
| structure so that we know what additional data we need to collect
| for each individual.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-15 23:00 UTC)