Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

200 page book converted into DNA by researchers

page: 8
113
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by salainen
 


This storage medium wouldn't evolve any more than you hard disk is capable if evolving.


So your saying that this DNA does not mutate? And does not degrade (ie. wont require replication)?




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by salainen

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by salainen
 


This storage medium wouldn't evolve any more than you hard disk is capable if evolving.


So your saying that this DNA does not mutate? And does not degrade (ie. wont require replication)?


Even with some "mutations" the majority of the "data" would be avaliable, given the vast amount of samples....

The problem here is
1) Who or What put that data into our DNA?

2) Is there a way of decoding it?

3) Would it be "formatted" in some way or its some kind of raw data?

4) Is data at all?

5) Maybe that´s the "program" for making consciousness avaliable for a species with some potential, like us?

Maybe... just maybe...



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by salainen
 


This isn't some half-man, half-book hybrid, evolution has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Evolution is concerned with biodiversity, nothing else.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by PragmaticBeliever
 


Who put what data into our DNA? The article mentions nothing of the sort.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Yes and in a few million years it would have evolved a few extra chapters or rearranged itself to create a new book.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Not sure if posted...Is binary coding the best way to use such 3D system? I thought DNA is made in a smarter way than our 1's and 0's
Instead of these 2 there are 4 aminoacids. I think they don't understand the system yet...
edit on 23/8/2012 by PapagiorgioCZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Just did some quick calculations, and a human is only capable of storing around 227,703 pages of text.

6 billion base pairs in the human genome, / by 5.27 million base pairs it took to encode the book, x the 200 pages in the book = 227,703 pages.

That means a human has a storage potential of only 683.10MB.

We're little better than an early 1990s HDD.... How special do you feel now?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by PragmaticBeliever
 


Who put what data into our DNA? The article mentions nothing of the sort.


Did you read the entire Slayer´s post ? Or just the article?

Go ahead... Read



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by PragmaticBeliever

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by PragmaticBeliever
 


Who put what data into our DNA? The article mentions nothing of the sort.


Did you read the entire Slayer´s post ? Or just the article?

Go ahead... Read

What? Your post is baseless speculation that has nothing to do with the article or what I posted.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by FanarFanar
Just did some quick calculations, and a human is only capable of storing around 227,703 pages of text.

6 billion base pairs in the human genome, / by 5.27 million base pairs it took to encode the book, x the 200 pages in the book = 227,703 pages.

That means a human has a storage potential of only 683.10MB.

We're little better than an early 1990s HDD.... How special do you feel now?

That's wrong. The book they saved on the DNA had 700 Terabytes.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Apleness
 


Where did you get that number from? 7TB for 200 pages of text? An average page of text only clocks in at 3KB.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FanarFanar
reply to post by Apleness
 


Where did you get that number from? 7TB for 200 pages of text? An average page of text only clocks in at 3KB.

Tate a read: www.extremetech.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Apleness
 


That is 7TB per gram of synthetically produced DNA. They are extrapolating a data to Wight ratio from the strand they created to encode the book.

My numbers still stand for human DNA storage potential.

Our total mass is not comprised of unique DNA. It's 6 billion base pairs repeated in our cells. Which means that human DNA has the storage potential of 683.10MB as I already stated. If we had any more storage potential we wouldn't be humans.
edit on 23-8-2012 by FanarFanar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Was just thinking ...

With that kind of data storage capability; 700 Terabytes in just that little space,

Johnny Mnemonic just got f'realz, kinda, sorta, but more on a bio-wet-ware platform than hardware.

Johhny Mnemonic -IMDb



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by FanarFanar
reply to post by Apleness
 


That is 7TB per gram of synthetically produced DNA. They are extrapolating a data to Wight ratio from the strand they created to encode the book.

My numbers still stand for human DNA storage potential.

Our total mass is not comprised of unique DNA. It's 6 billion base pairs repeated in our cells. Which means that human DNA has the storage potential of 683.10MB as I already stated.
edit on 23-8-2012 by FanarFanar because: (no reason given)

Why would you want human DNA storage ? This is all about synthetic DNA.
edit on 23-8-2012 by Apleness because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Apleness
 


I'm not suggesting human dna storage.

I was pointing out that the data storage potential of a human is pretty small, to the people in this thread that seem to think that human-beings contain some great universal secret, encoded in us by some unknown maker.

Actualy, I guess we could contain the secret to life, the universe and everything. 42 would take up almost no space at all.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FanarFanar
 



That's IF whoever {Speculation of course} would encode us with our clunky binary coding.

The fact remains DNA IS a coding.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Indeed.

But to put a different spin on things, take the genetic storage potential of every single genome on the planet and apply the same encoding method. That's a sh!t load of data storage. Maybe the Earth is the hard drive and extinctions are just data erasures.

See... I can be just a crazy as the next guy.


I'm off to take a shower now. I seem to be covered in ATS... Now where did I put my loofah?



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FanarFanar
 


I've been on the sideline {On purpose} regarding those who are claiming this is proof of a "Creator" vs "Evolution" for good reason.

Both have seemed to miss the potential ramifications and the obvious flaw. IF Aliens manipulated our DNA to create us then they had to have had something to work with? Theirs and our terrestrial DNA to manipulate. This still doesn't answer where did it come from?

Nature or God....




posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by FanarFanar
 


That is why our minds only remember important things, and memory only stores information that is repeated. However, we as a species, share data in an overwhelmingly sophisticated way, with thousands of different linguistics, methods of grammar, ideology's, problem solving techniques. All generally a different perspective on the same thing, which is the core to the diversity that evolution seeks to emplace on a species ie: Phenotypes, a repetition of the same thing. Its not necessarily about how much you know, but how well you know, what you do know. For example, a space program, that utilizes the idea's of vastly different cultures, and technological backgrounds, is way more likely to make a breakthrough then one that simply utilizes one country.

This "drone like" undiversified globalization of our species, is a step in the wrong direction, standardized testing, and curriculum's are extremely negative to any species that relies on diversification to further themselves. Especially one's who are not able to store large amounts of data, since it destroys the main positive side of having small memory "banks". For some one in India, able to learn the idea's of rocket science for themselves, instead of having the already known idea's forced on them "as the best", they will have a totally different idea of how it should work. This can thereby increase our chances of developing more sophisticated methods of getting ourselves into space, and it can be utilized in every single field we know of.

So, to summarize what I am saying, our small memory "bank", can be an advantage if we use it correctly, and unify our species under a system of educational diversity. Thereby increasing our chances of knowing every side to a problem, and coming up with the best solution to these problems. One would imagine a species with large memory "banks", is far less likely to accept a radical change in their perception of what life is like. This is a flaw, even one that we have seen effect our small memory "banks", with our iron grip on ideology's that do us no good.

Contrary to what some may say, smaller is sometimes better.






top topics



 
113
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join