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: 4
109
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by stormcell
 




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).


Excellent analogy!!!! Really interesting.




posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

stormcell
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..

An organized design team, then?


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).

And produces the ultimate in biological software--not to mention the non-material, massless wonder we call "consciousness." You know, 'consciousness,' that great creative wonder responsible for everything from the mind-boggling pyramids to our trips to the moon.

You just made, imo, the very best argument for intelligent design on this thread. Congrats!



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
That is ridiculous. As humans, we have only developed binary code. With binary code, each bit of information can only store two options - 0 or 1. A byte (8 bits) is like 0101 0001. That takes up 8 spaces and can hold 2^8, or 256 different options.

This is because with binary code, we are using electricity, which has an on and an off option (at least that is the property of electricity we are using). The DNA is using chemicals, with four different ones to choose from, as their main mechanism.

DNA already holds 4 different options per bit. So in one byte, it can have 4^8. or 65536 different commands. That is already ridiculously superior to computer code. To add another set of commands on top of the first is just outclasses computer code...
edit on 13pmFri, 13 Dec 2013 19:46:58 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

pandersway



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.


Not ready to lead at the moment. As I recall most if not all epigenetic mechanisms act on RNA and have to do with turning genes on and off. Perhaps environmental cues trigger epigenetic mechanisms that spur this 'hidden code' into action.

But I have to do a bit more research and thinking before I comment for real.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

darkbake
That is ridiculous. As humans, we have only developed binary code. With binary code, each bit of information can only store two options - 0 or 1. A byte (8 bits) is like 0101 0001. That takes up 8 spaces and can hold 2^8, or 256 different options.

This is because with binary code, we are using electricity, which has an on and an off option (at least that is the property of electricity we are using). The DNA is using chemicals, with four different ones to choose from, as their main mechanism.

DNA already holds 4 different options per bit. So in one byte, it can have 4^8. or 65536 different commands. That is already ridiculously superior to computer code. To add another set of commands on top of the first is just outclasses computer code...
edit on 13pmFri, 13 Dec 2013 19:46:58 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


We have already achieved the level of information storage that DNA (as you describe it) has. Just because CPUs don't seem like they can achieve it, doesn't mean we can't. Thanks to abstraction (layers and layers and layers and layers and layers of abstraction), we can have things like Massively Parallel Neural computation arrays utilizing FPGAs:

Massively Parallel Blah Blah by Paul James Fox


Fox, Paul J. "Massively parallel neural computation." month (2013).


Trust me, if we sat down and never pushed abstraction to the limit where we have now, we would be thinking just like you. But unlike DNA, we can abstract those 0s 1s to mean anything we want them to mean.

ETA: If you don't know what a Neural Network is, it is basically a simulation of the neural synapse network we have in our brains. And we can simulate many of these thanks to advancements like this.
edit on 13-12-2013 by mr10k because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Oh...that's fantastic...

SO you're telling me we've been genetically modifying our food supply without actually being able to completely understand what we were doing?

That's great...

Can we talk about actual testing now or are we still getting the rubber stamp treatment?
edit on 13-12-2013 by coldkidc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Matter (Universal common), Carbon (possible universal common), Dimethyltriptamine (possible universal common but definitely a terrestrial common), Symbiotic relationship with the world we live on (terrestrial common)....the list is endless.

The ignorance of some people, eh?!?!? It's why this world is going to go to the clappers and we'll die a very poor and decrepit species...because of our failure to understand and appreciate the relationship we hold with this planet and its creations.
edit on 13-12-2013 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   

xDeadcowx
reply to post by The GUT
 


Please explain how this has anything to do with intelligent design? I fail to see the link between a second layer of data in a strand of DNA and an omnipotent being.

Using the terms "intellectually honest" and "intelligent design" in the same sentence is an oxymoron. There is nothing intellectually honest about inserting something that has zero supporting evidence as an explanation for anything.


Do you have any evidence on What started the universe 15 trillion years ago?

No?

Then a creater is no more inplausible than random chance.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Im sorry, but what does this have to do with the information in DNA?

I never claimed to have an answer to the origins of the universe or DNA for that matter. If you are referring to the evolution of DNA then you are mistaking abiogenesis with evolution and i am not going to take the time, nor is it my responsibility to explain it to you.

Using the "God of the gaps" argument does nothing to affirm your view. You are doing nothing but arguing from ignorance and as the ATS motto goes, we should be denying ignorance.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 



Do you have any evidence on What started the universe 15 trillion years ago?


Billion.

Hah! If it were trillion nature would have had even more nearly unimaginable lengths of time to work its 'magic'. Alas, its only had billions… only.


Then a creater is no more inplausible than random chance.

Lets be honest here. Most of the people starring these posts are not deist, they have extensive underlying beliefs about the very nature of that creator. I say this because the 'plausibility' concerning Yahweh, Zeus, or Vishnu is an entirely separate matter. Even if this finding about DNA somehow proved an intelligent designer, that in no way extends itself to give credence to any religious god.
edit on 13-12-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

xDeadcowx
Using the "God of the gaps" argument does nothing to affirm your view. You are doing nothing but arguing from ignorance and as the ATS motto goes, we should be denying ignorance.

'Evolution of the Gaps' is even more silly. Adaptation, on the other hand, certainly isn't unreasonable...nor does it negate design.

At least we have a 'model'--through the creative and empirical achievement of consciousness--that creation and design have real-world application and "knock-on-wood" evidence. For example; the space shuttle didn't assemble itself.

Not to mention the clues inherent in 'paradox.' Nor the yet-to-be-even-nominally-described-by-science, weightless, massless, non-materialistic, consciousness responsible for such design and creation.



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



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


Yes, there are things we do not know. Through research and experimentation we are constantly learning new information. That is all i am saying, and all i am claiming.

I am not the one jumping to conclusions or making up explanation to things that do not currently have an explanation. If you want to believe that everything was created and designed by some supreme being, then more power to you, but don't expect people to accept it without a reason other than ignorance.

When you come in to a thread about scientific discovery and make wild claims, then argue from ignorance you do the community and the world a disservice. Stifling progress by dwelling on made up answers never has, and never will do anybody any good.

This is why science and religion can not co-exist.
edit on 12/13/2013 by xDeadcowx because: typo



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by pandersway
 

Yes - My bad - should have placed those statements in quotes, as well (as the one that preceded).
Just too many layers of requirement/s to keep up with these days.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Oh wow! This is pretty ground breaking. So, now we know not only that DNA tell proteins how to arrange but also have to behave.

It leads me to think that our DNA really is us, in every sense of the word. Our DNA seems to dedicate everything about us. Mind you, the `idea` of a soul and the human `spirit` is still up for debate but those things might also be connected to our DNA as well. Science is not that advanced yet but I am sure scientist will discover what the so-called spark of life comes from overtime.

I am wondering what can be done with this new discovery. I mean, could scientist figure out a way for us to carry over genetic traits to two different gene pools which have never mixed before. If the proteins behave similar enough it might is possible.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   

xDeadcowx
Yes, there are things we do not know. Through research and experimentation we are constantly learning new information. That is all i am saying, and all i am claiming.

I am not the one jumping to conclusions or making up explanation to things that do not currently have an explanation. If you want to believe that everything was created and designed by some supreme being, then more power to you, but don't expect people to accept it without a reason other than ignorance.

When you come in to a thread about scientific discovery and make wild claims, then argue from ignorance you do the community and the world a disservice. Stifling progress by dwelling on made up answers never has, and never will do anybody any good.


I've provided 'evidentiary' items for consideration. I've discussed valid theory here, not religion. Can you point out where I have brought religion into this? Nope, you can't. Yet again your reading comprehension and/or word definition is lacking. In addition, never forget that modern science had its birth in philosophy.

For example: In your opinion is some form of intelligent design out of the question whether it be from ancient aliens or an omnipotent entity or some other form of intelligence? Please answer that, sir.

In addition I've proffered a well-accepted scientific technique by providing a 'model' that references empirical proof of design and creative output. That model being 'consciousness' and its emprical achievements of design and function.

I concede no "disservice" and the only "ignorant" entity here would be science itself…or at least your somewhat hackneyed interpretation thereof.

Because 'science' has arms to short to measure something in no way negates the evidentiary items presented.


This is why science and religion can not co-exist.

Not that I addressed "religion" in any way, but that statement is not only ludicrous, but shows how all over the place your 'logic' is. Weren't you the one that facetiously said that if God were ever proven it would be by Science. Wouldn't they then coexist??!


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



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
They'll find a lot more than 2 layers if they keep looking. This is great that they are finally admitting this, but honestly, it seems like common sense to me. That's the problem with todays scientists though, they shun common sense and intuition.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 


I for one believe we share a deep level of connection with everything in nature. Personally I believe we likely live in an eternal physical Universe that goes through an endless series of big bangs and big crunches (tho that's not currently the popular theory). The level of connection, I think, will continue to startle and bewilder us. We will continue to uncover the extent of this through science and otherwise. Having a deeper meaning to life, perhaps even spiritual in a sense, in my opinion does not require any all-together transcendent component. If the purpose of life is life itself then a physical eternal Universe is the perfect representation of that goodness. What could be more good than to have something exist, rather than nothing, forever. This appears frightening because it seems to suck deeper meaning out of an individual life, but I feel one should expand their sense of meaning and purpose and look at things on a grander scale. How does the welfare of your one soul compare to the eternal perpetuation of life in regards to a deeper purpose. I feel it's erroneous for someone to ask what's the greater meaning of my life. If you take away the 'me' in the equation the question seems to answer itself. The meaning of life is for life to exist. That in of itself is good, because nothing rather than something would be bad. Right?
In my most humble opinion.

I suppose someone might reply to "What could be more good than to have something exist, rather than nothing, forever. with "Lucid how about both the individual soul AND physical life? Would that not be better?" Well I have yet to hear any description about an eternal state of being that any conscious being would actually want to exist in forever that wouldn't ultimately entail that person no longer being that person. Imagine existing forever as the individual conscious creature you are now
White lights, family reunions, angels singing, and a bunch of virgins, wouldn't satisfy the average conscious experience for a lifetime let alone forever
edit on 13-12-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Quite the brain teaser. DNA, with a nearly undecipherable code. Mitochondria with RNA, which is comparable in complexity. Written on elemental compounds that are self replicating. Along with complex organic mechanics, that started to exist in tandem. All of the separate codes happening to work in unity. Then in an equally complex accident, created a fractal code between the adapted bonds, that allowed it to become self aware. Only aware enough, that it takes billions of replications, to understand that its long from possible, to ever truly decipher itself.
Its so much easier to just accept the "truth" for what it is now, then enduring the wait.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Yeh, I've always preferred the idea that our consciousness gains experience through lifetimes, but of course you don't get to know this until you pass or until you spend a majority of your life dedicated to internal reflection.

Although the idea of existing like a vampire, experiencing forever as one continual experience, is still tempting due to what has transpired in our past earth history and with how fast technology is currently progressing, and what it will bring in the future.

But then you realise that you're still only talking about a drop in the ocean of endless time.



posted on Dec, 13 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 




I've provided 'evidentiary' items for consideration. I've discussed valid theory here, not religion. Can you point out where I have brought religion into this? Nope, you can't. Yet again your reading comprehension and/or word definition is lacking. In addition, never forget that modern science had its birth in philosophy.


Since you seem to like to nitpick word choice, lets try this out.

"Evidentiary - of or providing evidence". I have seen zero evidence in any of your posts. Making a claim is not considered evidence, never has been and never will be. If you ever do come up with verifiable evidence for a creator, or intelligent design, then you will rock the entire world. Creationists have been trying for a very long time and have come up empty handed.

"Theory - A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing" You seem to be using the word theory in the colloquial form, meaning a guess, but that is far from the true definition of the word. There is nothing about your "theory" that can be tested, let alone repeated.

Please don't talk to me about reading comprehension or word definition in the same breath as you completely misuse multiple words.

Now, on to the topic of bringing up religion. You were the first person in this thread to bring up intelligent design, calling it intellectually dishonest not to consider a second layer of data in a strand of DNA evidence of intelligent design. Are you really going to invoke intelligent design, then claim you did not bring up religion? If so, please elaborate because i would love to see the mental gymnastics it would take to make that stretch.

To address the philosophical end of things, all i will say is that philosophy and science are two very different things and to spend time on the semantics of where science ends and philosophy begins will do nothing more than waste time and energy on a topic that has already wasted too much of both.



For example: In your opinion is some form of intelligent design out of the question whether it be from ancient aliens or an omnipotent entity or some other form of intelligence? Please answer that, sir.


There is zero evidence for intelligent design so, in my opinion, there is no intelligent design. If some evidence were to emerge, then i would change my opinion. I cannot prove the lack of intelligent design anymore than i could prove the lack of pink elephants that live in space. Since it is nearly impossible to prove a negative, i focus on what is known, or discoverable at this time.



In addition I've proffered a well-accepted scientific technique by providing a 'model' that references empirical proof of design and creative output. That model being 'consciousness' and its emprical achievements of design and function.

I concede no "disservice" and the only "ignorant" entity here would be science itself…or at least your somewhat hackneyed interpretation thereof.

Because 'science' has arms to short to measure something in no way negates the evidentiary items presented.


You have "proffered" no such thing. All you have done is jump to a preconceived conclusion. Just because we can not fully explain something does not mean it was designed, it just means we do not have the tools, or the knowledge to explain it at this time. Scientific discovery is a painstaking and exhausting process, but the end results are facts and data. Facts and data are what give us knowledge, and the more knowledge we have, the more facts and data we can uncover. The pursuit of knowledge will never end as long a humanity exists.



Not that I addressed "religion" in any way, but that statement is not only ludicrous, but shows how all over the place your 'logic' is. Weren't you the one that facetiously said that if God were ever proven it would be by Science. Wouldn't they then coexist??!


The day that there is a single shred of valid scientific evidence for any one of the thousands of religions, then, and only then will religion join science. Until then, it is nothing more than pointless conjecture that has no place when discussing scientific discoveries. Theists constantly attempt to claim any scientific discovery as affirmation of their beliefs. This flies in the face of the scientific method and slows down progress.

In summary, there is nothing in the article linked in the OP that affirms the idea of intelligent design. The only people that are making that connection are those that are seeing what they want to see and completely ignoring everything else. You can make all the claims you want, but without evidence these claims are nothing more than speculation and it is intellectually dishonest to assert otherwise.




top topics



 
109
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join