It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code

page: 3
109
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stormcell
 


I have to agree with you as well (on certain aspects). Ever since I started CS research, the thought has always been that if humans were in fact created, the thing that designed us must have been hundreds of millions of years ahead of us. We have been making breakthroughs in AI for the past 70 years, and we are very very close to adept and unsupervised pattern recognition. That alone is just one milestone though, as it will take decades or even centuries before we can revise our current algorithms to efficient enough variants that we can utilize as little power as the human brain does. But a breakthrough is a breakthrough, even if it doesn't sound like much to the average person, they provide mounds of glory and optimism to the field it encompasses.




posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by xDeadcowx
 



There is zero supporting evidence for this God you trying to claim designed DNA and there is zero evidence to support DNA being designed in the first place.


Yeah Gut, don't you know this in depth DNA just went POOF out of nowhere? Everyone knows that something intelligent didn't make intelligent beings.....DUH....

/sarcasm


I'm sorry but this just made me laugh and took all the seriousness out of this thread. This is what I mean when I say "average people won't understand"



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Doing a bit of research elsewhere on the net, it seems that this paper isnt quite as dramatic as the press release from Washington Uni would have the world believe.

As a simple example, this thread at another well known website has people saying things such as:


It's a headline that made me read it.
Had it read "There are transcription-factor binding sites inside axons", I probably wouldn't have bothered.



Transcription factor binding sites inside coding genes have been known about for decades, e.g. PMID 6299576 [PubMed]. In human cells they were described in large numbers 10 years ago.



It's interesting stuff but nowhere near as groundbreaking or "second code"-like as the article makes it out to be. I don't want to seem like I don't appreciate this research because it really is interesting and will probably help fill in the inconsistencies in some protein models.
I'm just disappointed in the article. Though it is the institutes article so they obviously want to hype up their research.



... it has been obvious for a long while that pretty much all parts of the genome are open to having regulatory roles in gene expression...



I don't see what the big deal is. Everyone who knows anything looks for regulatory regions everywhere along a gene, regardless of whether the regions are coding or not.
There is nothing novel here at all.



The "second code" has been known for a long time, and unfortunately both the paper and the press release sensationalize this "discovery" by ignoring all previous work, such as this paper.


So in summary, it appears (not just from the website I just quoted, but also elsewhere) that this research
* is not radically groundbreaking at all, but merely adds to the knowledge on a field that had been only lightly studied before,
* is one in which they invented a new word (duons) to make it really cool and exciting,
* shed more light on the conserved part of the sequences.

So... no aliens, no "intelligent design", no throwing out everything we know so far, no Nobel Prize for them.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Good stuff. However, might this work help distinguish between effects of the "hidden code" and those from epigenetic mechanisms?



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 





The University of Washington--UoW being an academic institution--has chosen words such as, "meaning," "code," "write," and "instructions' as descriptors in the linked article.

Those are suggestive and heavy-duty words. You shouldn't need as much of a lesson on their impact as you seem to on the definition of oxymoron---though I could be wrong on that. Read 'em again if you're still lost. It'll hit ya.

Philosophically--and with Occam's in mind--I would further proffer that the idea that this particular and most spectacular of creative forces--DNA--stems from something less than "consciousness" is negated in that we don't even have--at least as far as the University of Washington is concerned--words that don't imply design when describing the theorem. Design, as you'll remember from above, suggests intelligence.

And we haven't even gotten to the added complexity of the "second language."


Oh…before I forget:

Although a true oxymoron is "something that is surprisingly true, a paradox," Garry Wills has argued that modern usage has brought a common misunderstanding[4] that oxymoron is nearly synonymous with contradiction.

en.wikipedia.org...

8 em dashes in 7 sentences? I'd avoid being critical of other people's mastery of the English language if I were you.

Your argument, from what I could decipher, seems to be something along the lines of:

Anything that is designed by definition requires a designer.

The 'ol teleological argument! Complexity does not infer design. Isn't the best design often the simplest?



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

theantediluvian
8 em dashes in 7 sentences? I'd avoid being critical of other people's mastery of the English language if I were you.


Style and 'voice.' I used some colloquialisms, too!



Your argument, from what I could decipher, seems to be something along the lines of:

Anything that is designed by definition requires a designer.


Sure. Why not?


design |dəˈzīn|
noun
1 a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made : he has just unveiled his design for the new museum.

• the art or action of conceiving of and producing such a plan or drawing : good design can help the reader understand complicated information | the cloister is of late twelfth century design.

• an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or decoration : pottery with a lovely blue and white design.

2 purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object : the appearance of design in the universe.



The 'ol teleological argument! Complexity does not infer design. Isn't the best design often the simplest?


I would say that to produce the range and complexity of a human being, the DNA design is as simple and elegant as possible.

'Elegant' both compliments and supersedes simplicity. Meaning the "simplest' design doesn't negate complexity and most oft--in this sense--refers to efficacy and efficiency.



elegant |ˈeləgənt|
adjective
pleasingly graceful and stylish in appearance or manner : she will look elegant in black | an elegant, comfortable house.

• (of a scientific theory or solution to a problem) pleasingly ingenious and simple : the grand unified theory is compact and elegant in mathematical terms.



edit on 13-12-2013 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
To the design/chance argument, it's very true that pop "intelligent design" memes are NOT intelligent in the least. I have imagery of rust-belt trailer museums with paper mache' dinosaurs and cavemen cavorting... a far cry from the careful, thoughtful assertions of science.

That said, some intelligence designing the little bio-life coding dna isn't stupid, and might be a simpler answer to a portion of existence... however it doesn't help with bigger concepts, like who designed the possible designer/designers... and how are they coded, and if so, then... etc.

But that GUT - Joker/clockwork collage dialogue WAS funny.
edit on 12/13/2013 by Baddogma because: duh



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 



Yeah Gut, don't you know this in depth DNA just went POOF out of nowhere? Everyone knows that something intelligent didn't make intelligent beings.....DUH....

/sarcasm

You will one day understand that God did make all life on Earth...Sorry if that day isn't today and I am not here to sway you that way...

God bless


Yeah Chrisfishenstein, 'poofing out of nowhere' is not how evolutionary processes work nor how people familiar with it have been saying it happens. It only "poofs" out of nowhere to you, and others, that have no real understanding of it. Duh.

Hopefully you will one day understand this. Sorry if that's not today.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Out with the old, in with the nucleus.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Lucid Lunacy
Yeah Chrisfishenstein, 'poofing out of nowhere' is not how evolutionary processes work nor how people familiar with it have been saying it happens. It only "poofs" out of nowhere to you, and others, that have no real understanding of it. Duh.

Hopefully you will one day understand this. Sorry if that's not today.


You do know that "poofing out of nowhere'" ... also known as "The Big Bang" ... is the current scientific belief right?

If not, hopefully you will one day. Sorry if that's not today.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 




I would say that to produce the range and complexity of a human being, the DNA design is as simple and elegant as possible.

'Elegant' both compliments and supersedes simplicity. Meaning the "simplest' design doesn't negate complexity and most oft--in this sense--refers to efficacy and efficiency.

Can I then assume that you believe this designer of yours is not also responsible for designing the Universe? I say this because if there were a designer, who was responsible for designing the Universe, why would he bother with DNA at all? Why not just create a Universe where things just popped in and out of existence and didn't have things like metabolisms and sexual reproduction?

Elegance is a subjective.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 





Why do you always need to find subtlety, successive layers and alternate explanations...? Why can't you be satisfied with the simple truth -?-?- It is - what it - is. Before you know it, we'll be finding conspiracies under every rock and crawl space.


I wasn't aware that you knew me that well, Sir.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   


GREAT find. Now I'm wondering about the relationship between epigenetic mechanisms and this hidden code.
reply to post by soficrow
 


By all means lead on. See where it takes us.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
This is just more evidence of intelligent design.

Gene regulation and control clearly shows that we were designed by intelligence. This can be an intelligent God or intelligence is fundamental to reality. There's really no way around this conclusion and this has been true for many years now.

What intelligent design is saying is that intelligence arranged the DNA letters to convey a specific message. This is what intelligence does. Intelligence can arrange raw materials to convey a specific message.

For instance, you can look at scrambled letters of the alphabet and intelligence can take letters from the alphabet and spell out Meet me at the corner store on Hayden Avenue. This arrangement of the alphabet is predetermined by intelligence to convey a message.

We can convey a message with cereal boxes in the garbage.

If the box of Cheerios is outside of the garbage meet me at Subway across the street. If the box of Captain Crunch is outside of the garbage then meet me at Mr. Hero across the street. In order to accept a natural interpretation of evolution you would have to believe that evolution not put the box of cereal outside of the garbage but also created the message to meet me at Subway or Mr. Hero.

It goes deeper than that because the box of cereal (DNA Letters) have to be arranged in a specific way for things like transcription, translation, error correction and gene regulation to occur. This arrangement has to be predetermined by intelligence.

Look at insertion and deletion. When a specific arrangement of DNA letters are inserted gene regulation and expression is turned on. It's like turning on a light switch. When you hit the switch, a specific arrangement designed by intelligence occurs and the lights come on.

The more we learn about DNA, it becomes more obvious that we were designed by intelligence. These things don't evolve. This predetermined arrangement controls and regulates the evolution. Just like a predetermined arrangement controls and regulates your TV or microwave oven.

We have to be a reflection of this intelligence because we do the same thing. We can put raw materials in a predetermined state to convey a message and give it meaning. We can understand the prearranged meaning or Word inherent in the universe.
edit on 13-12-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by WeAre0ne
 



You do know that "poofing out of nowhere'" ... also known as "The Big Bang" ... is the current scientific belief right?


Again this just demonstrates a lack of understanding about the evolutionary processes.

Since that "poof" occurred, there has been 13.8 billion years.

The idea being discussed is seeing complexity in nature and from that deciding it requires an intelligent designer. However, to think in 13.8 billions years that level of complexity couldn't arise naturally is showing an ignorance to the science and what we already have discovered scientifically.

Also to be clear. The BBT says all matter came from an infinitely(?) condensed state. Not from nowhere. One could fairly ask where did that nearly? infinitely condensed state come from, but it's not accurate to say the BBT is about matter 'poofing out of nowhere'…
edit on 13-12-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 




Is this true?! Would we now have to embrace intelligent design if we're intellectually honest?


There has been a great deal of debate about this but IF I had to choose a side, I would agree with you Gut.

Perhaps in the near future there won't be anymore need for banter.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

gort51
What if Atoms are actually intelligent beings, and construct their own dna strings, and fool around with creation?

What if the Atoms, are the G:hey
s.

We exist only in a Dimension of space and time, to suit the Atoms.

Can only an Atomic Bomb kill Atoms?
Does an Atom live for infinity.

Hail to the Atom!!



LOL it like Only a Ninja can Stop a Ninja - Sho Kausugi

Ironically we can Use Atoms like 12 of them as Data Storge drives !!

So Who know how Much information DNA Has of Code!! and Now We have Discovered there's another Code Language !! ? So more Less its Doubled !! ok and Speaking Of Atoms !! for Storing information !

Atomic-scale magnetic memory
The computer you're working on stores one bit of data in about 1 million atoms. With atomic-scale magnetic memory, 12 is the new million.
www.ibm.com...

IBM creates data storage at the atomic level
A new discovery by Big Blue researchers suggests that it's possible to store a bit of information in as little as 12 magnetic atoms. Today's disk drives require a million atoms to store a bit.
news.cnet.com...

Virtual Becomes Reality...

well let see where or what that Junk DNA really About..? or the retro Virus or Why is there Faults in our DNA of Genetic Faults like Disease and what the Hell is that 3 percent difference is between Ape and Man and what the hell that is!! Cant wait till they decode this !
or Will TPTB show it to the Public of the World ! or Maybe they are afraid to show what the 2nd Code Language will reveal ! ?? or maybe we will start seeing Superhuman !! BIO Engineering Alteration Modification etc.. with a better understanding of Genetics DNA .. Then We Have intelligent Design (( US )) Improving Ourselves Erasing the Faults... We are our own Gods Now we kinda sorta ! LOL ..

GATTICA

Tho Those Faults In our DNA are their for a Purpose..




edit on 13-12-2013 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   


The University of Washington--UoW being an academic institution--has chosen words such as, "meaning," "code," "write," and "instructions' as descriptors in the linked article.
reply to post by The GUT
 


Words which don't mean what you think they mean, not in layman's terms. No-one "wrote" DNA.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

neoholographic
This is just more evidence of intelligent design.

Gene regulation and control clearly shows that we were designed by intelligence. This can be an intelligent God or intelligence is fundamental to reality. There's really no way around this conclusion and this has been true for many years now.

What intelligent design is saying is that intelligence arranged the DNA letters to convey a specific message. This is what intelligence does. Intelligence can arrange raw materials to convey a specific message.

For instance, you can look at scrambled letters of the alphabet and intelligence can take letters from the alphabet and spell out Meet me at the corner store on Hayden Avenue. This arrangement of the alphabet is predetermined by intelligence to convey a message.

We can convey a message with cereal boxes in the garbage.

If the box of Cheerios is outside of the garbage meet me at Subway across the street. If the box of Captain Crunch is outside of the garbage then meet me at Mr. Hero across the street. In order to accept a natural interpretation of evolution you would have to believe that evolution not put the box of cereal outside of the garbage but also created the message to meet me at Subway or Mr. Hero.

It goes deeper than that because the box of cereal (DNA Letters) have to be arranged in a specific way for things like transcription, translation, error correction and gene regulation to occur. This arrangement has to be predetermined by intelligence.

Look at insertion and deletion. When a specific arrangement of DNA letters are inserted gene regulation and expression is turned on. It's like turning on a light switch. When you hit the switch, a specific arrangement designed by intelligence occurs and the lights come on.

The more we learn about DNA, it becomes more obvious that we were designed by intelligence. These things don't evolve. This predetermined arrangement controls and regulates the evolution. Just like a predetermined arrangement controls and regulates your TV or microwave oven.

We have to be a reflection of this intelligence because we do the same thing. We can put raw materials in a predetermined state to convey a message and give it meaning. We can understand the prearranged meaning or Word inherent in the universe.
edit on 13-12-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)


I work in the design of computer hardware - super large silicon chip designs. We have teams of hundreds of people implementing the hardware and software across the continent. For a tiny piece of silicon just 2.8mm square, that requires 2 million lines of code and a hundred engineers.

Everyone is typing away at keyboards, creating new branches of the entire code base, changing one letter at a time in text editors, cutting and pasting blocks of data, copying a generic file to a new file name, scooping out the old contents, then filling in the details, doing code reviews, and automated tests, all before merging their changes back into the main directory (using tools like sccs, subversion, gerrit). Our projects are so large, that it is practically impossible for every team to check with every other team to make sure their changes don't mess things up, so we have regression tests. Only the most closely related teams interact daily with each other..

All of that isn't too different from what basic evolution does. Changes DNA one letter at a time (mutation), swaps chromosomes and genes around, duplicates genes, disables them, does merging and integration tests (conception), branching (reproduction).



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Interesting.


I wonder what the implications will be on the so called "Junk DNA" now.

s+f

I am going to keep my eye on this finding.



new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join