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.

 

How do mutations code sequence to symbols?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 02:29 AM
link   
A lie of Darwinist is that mutations create information. Mutations didn't create the genetic code. That simply sounds absurd.

DNA stores the genetic code digitally. The genetic code didn't evolve but information stored on the digital storage medium that is DNA evolved. As the code is copied, copying errors(mutations) occur.

How can mutations create a code? It has to be designed by intelligence. The code never changes just the information digitally stored on the code changes as the code is copied.

For instance, I can say:

10 = A
01 = B
00 = C
11 = D

Intelligence has to say that 10 = A in this A,B,C,D universe. That's the code. Say the organism that best survives in this universe is ones with.

01 = B
10 = A
11 = D

So BAD organisms survive best in this universe. You have error correction because as the code is copied over and over again, sometimes 11 flips to 10. So you get BAA organisms.

Because of error correction, you will still mostly get BAD organisms. You might have small populations in an environment where BAA is more beneficial to the organism. So over time you will get more BAA organisms populating the environment via reproduction.

None of this changes the genetic code! None of the mutations create that 10 = A or 01 =B just like no mutations can create that that GAG = Glutamic Acid or GTG = Valine.

Now mutatation are copying errors of the code or there's mutations because of changes in the environment. So the information digitally stored on the code can change because of mutations but not the code itself. In a coding sequence, GTG will = Valine and GAG will = Glutamic Acid.

How does a mutation code a sequence with a symbol? GTG is a sequence that codes for Valine. Just like the sequence 10 codes for A in the earlier example. I can say:

10 = cat
01 = dog
00 = mouse
11 = horse

My intelligence just encoded symbols to sequence. Now I can encode the animal I see first with just 1's and 0's. My intelligence can do that with a piece of typing paper. I can say if the paper is cut into 2 pieces meet me at Olive Garden at 7PM. If the typing paper is cut into 4 pieces meet me at Outback at 8 PM. I have just encoded a piece of typing paper with information. I have just encoded sequence with information. This is the way we build civilization.

The question is, what is the relationship between the sequence of bases Guanine, Thymine, Guanine and Valine? There is none and this is why we can use DNA to store books, CD's and PDF files. This sequence codes for Valine on a polypeptide chain. Mutations don't create any new information. They don't change the genetic code. They change the sequence of the genetic code.

So in the case of sickle cell, a point mutation occurs in an environment where Malaria is spreading and the information stored on the code that gives you normal red blood cells changes from GAG to GTG and you get sickle cells.

So this changes the sequence of the genetic code and the information stored on it's sequence can be expressed differently, but there's no new information. GTG = Valine in any sequence that it's in. So changing Glutamic Acid to Valine via a mutation is just changing the sequence of the gene whose genetic code was designed and connected the sequence GTG with the Amino Acid Valine.

The code hasn't mutated or has been changed. The sequence of the code has changed via a mutation. When the sequence changes the information encoded on it's sequence can change.

How can mutations say GAG will equal Glutamic Acid or GTG will equal Valine?

The code tells you in a polypeptite chain, when you see GAG, Glutamic Acid goes there or when you see GTG Valine goes there in the chain. Just like when you see 10 it equal A or 00 = C in the hypothetical universe.

10 or GTG can be anything and this is why we can store information on 1's and 0's or A,C,T and G's. It's intelligence that encodes the sequence of the storage medium not mutations.

Think about it. How can a mutation say this sequence codes x? Intelligence has to say when you see these 3 bases, Guanine, Thymine, Guanine in a sequence this = Valine. How can a mutation cause a sequence to be coded?

This is why I say there's an intelligent design interpretation of evolution and a natural interpretation of evolution. Darwinist are used to debating Evolution vs. Creationism or Evolution vs. Intelligent Design as if evolution is synonymous with their personal belief in materialism or naturalism.

When you look at it as an intelligent design interpretation of evolution vs. a natural interpretation of evolution, it's no contest. A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. We see the same correlations that we use to quantify intelligence and systems that are the product of intelligent design when we look at the DNA and how organisms evolve.



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 02:40 AM
link   
The answer is obvious and you must be naive, just add a million years or maybe 10 million years, 100 million?
It’s not about the science, it’s all about the years you add



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I do not see how you come from "GTG means Valine" to "this is intelligent design".

One of many, many problems is that the DNA is not a codestring where you read from beginning to the end, or even start at lets say position 1,000,000 to 1,000,006 as the "source code" for Valine.

Because the "adresses" 1,000,000 to 1,000,006 are also part of the code for ptialina (another enzyme), but that started at 999,981 and goes up to 1,000,073. (All those are incredibly simplified examples which have nothing to do with reality, lies-for-children as they say, and no, you are not a child).

Double times or triple or whatever the often some data is "read" by being copied and used as the schemata to just another protein, enzyme or other building block of the body.


A code that works does not have to be programmed, it can happen by accident.

Life found ways to cope with random code fragments.



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: neoholographic

I do not see how you come from "GTG means Valine" to "this is intelligent design".

One of many, many problems is that the DNA is not a codestring where you read from beginning to the end, or even start at lets say position 1,000,000 to 1,000,006 as the "source code" for Valine.

Because the "adresses" 1,000,000 to 1,000,006 are also part of the code for ptialina (another enzyme), but that started at 999,981 and goes up to 1,000,073. (All those are incredibly simplified examples which have nothing to do with reality, lies-for-children as they say, and no, you are not a child).

Double times or triple or whatever the often some data is "read" by being copied and used as the schemata to just another protein, enzyme or other building block of the body.


A code that works does not have to be programmed, it can happen by accident.

Life found ways to cope with random code fragments.


The code is serial and progresses along the DNA molecule following a chemically defined 'direction' (to do with ionic attractions and repulsions of the processing transcription enzymes).

Each codon size is exactly three bases long.

Entire genes reside between start and stop codons, like the start and stop bytes in serial communications.

There is no absolute positional counting method in transcription. The order is implicit in the chemical sequence, not by absolute location (which would require counters and multiple 'registers' to store count numbers for comparison, so that you knew where things were located by absolute position).

From a transcription point of view, the transcription enzymes progress along the RNA strand according to their chemical direction, until they hit a start codon. This 'toggles on' the process of building amino acids in sequence. Each codon codes for a single amino acid, in turn, until a stop codon toggles the process off. The sequence of amino acids together determine the protein produced and control its chirality (folding directions) chemically. Although there are only about 26 functional amino acids in humans, the number of proteins that can potentially be built from those amino acid building blocks is vast, in the order of 20 to the power of 50,000, however most of these are probably not viable. We don't really know the exact number of proteins that are real and functional.

While the code steps are fixed by the properties of the chemicals involved, there are different code interpretations of different branches of the phylogenetic tree. This leads many to assume that life had many separate 'starts' and that the 'connectedness' of the 'tree' is a fiction based upon our presumption that all life came from a common progenitor. Clearly, modern genetics that have arisen after the phylogenetic tree was drawn up, show that the branches are separate types of life. Without a common ancestor, a good chunk of the assumed evolution simply disappears.

Life seems to have arisen multiple times, in multiple separate environments, in multiple separate locations, and even the coding is not constant or consistent for all of 'life'.

edit on 22/1/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

You said:

A code that works does not have to be programmed, it can happen by accident.

Life found ways to cope with random code fragments.


It can happen by accident? How is this any different than saying God did it? At least with God have have a source of intelligence that explains why there's correlatations of information in DNA and as systems evolve.

We can quantify intelligence and we can quantify when intelligence in a system behaves in a non random way.

Intelligence is quantified by how fast you can make correlations in the data. We see it with IQ test and A.I. technology. The faster and more accurate you can make correlations in the data the more intelligent you are. When you take an IQ test, you see these kinds of questions.

Which number should come next in the pattern?

37, 34, 31, 28

Find the answer that best completes the analogy:

Book is to Reading as Fork is to: a. drawing b. writing c. stirring d. eating

Find two words, one from each group, that are the closest in meaning:

Group A talkative, job, ecstatic Group B angry, wind, loquaciousa. talkative and wind b. job and angry c. talkative and loquacious d. ecstatic and angry

Which of the following can be arranged into a 5-letter English word?

a. H R G S T b. R I L S A c. T O O M T d. W Q R G S

examples.yourdictionary.com...

The point is, intelligence isn't about how much information you can memorize like on Jeopardy, it's how you make correlations in the data. One person can look at one of these questions and make the correlations in a few seconds while another person might look at the question for 5 minutes before they can make the correlation. This is why we need A.I. We're creating so much data in this information age we can't make sense of it so we need A.I. to find the correlations in all of the data.

So we can quantify intelligence. Here's a recent paper that talks about the correlation of information in DNA.

Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information


Abstract

Understanding genetic regulation is a problem of fundamental importance. Recent studies have made it increasingly evident that, whereas the cellular genetic regulation system embodies multiple disparate elements engaged in numerous interactions, the central issue is the genuine function of the DNA molecule as information carrier. Compelling evidence suggests that the DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer. These two DNA information types are intrinsically coupled in the primary sequence organisation, and this coupling is directly relevant to regulation of the genetic function. In this review, we emphasise the critical need of holistic integration of the DNA information as a prerequisite for understanding the organisational complexity of the genetic regulation system.


link.springer.com...

You can read more about this here.

Paper: “Irreducible Organization” of DNA Necessary for Genetic Regulation

How did these various independent levels of information become “coordinated”? Brilliance seems the best explanation for something brilliant.


evolutionnews.org...

Again, you just can't say correlations of information that come from a code that stores information digitally that codes for proteins, non coding regions that are coded with information for gene regulation and it's encoded with information to build machinery made up 10, 20, 30 parts that just are the right size and shape and come together at the right angles to carry out different tasks, just happened by some natural accident with no explanation as to how this occurred.

If you're going to claim that nature or an "accident" did this, you have to explain exactly how. How did this natural accident build correlated systems in the same way intelligence does? It's like a snowflake encoded with information to build a snowman. It's also encoded with information to build machinery to assemble this snowman.

How did this natural accident encode the sequence GTG for Valine or GAG coded for Glutamic acid? Then this code stores information to build modular machinery to decode the information encoded in it's sequence. In my mind, there's no way anything random or natural can correlate parts that evolved seperately that just happened to be the right size and shape and that come together at the right angles to carry out different tasks. Now, I have seen this done by intelligence. Here's the design for a modular home.



The reason you can take these parts to the land and when they come together they form a house, is because the parts were designed by intelligence to work together. Where's the evolution of these parts and why do all of these parts just work together?

You can't just say nature did it by some magical accident. These things are how we quantify intelligence and systems designed by intelligence and if this happened by some magical mutations I'm going to want to know how nature built an intelligent encoding/decoding system digitally encoded in the sequence of a storage medium.

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” - Bill Gates
edit on 22-1-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 06:08 AM
link   
When the ancient Greeks saw lightning and had no way of understanding what it really was, they believed that the bolts were thrown by Zeus.

Just because we don't yet have a full understanding of how something complicated works does not inherently mean it was created by sentience.

I am ok with questions that we can't answer yet, in fact I enjoy them.



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I think the other main problem you’re facing is you’re trying to attribute human-understanding or our value system of understanding to DNA and somehow equating it to the same ‘design’ principles we use when building a watch or a house. And you can’t.

DNA as part of evolution isn’t always efficient, which is why it isn’t a good argument for evidence of intelligence design.

Richard Dawkins makes this point in some of his books/discussions. For example, he mentions a nerve (or artery?) in a giraffe’s neck which, based on where it is, extended over time as the giraffe’s neck elongated. Ideally, that is inefficient and it should have ‘moved’ itself out of the way so the nerve didn’t trombone down and back up. But that’s how it evolved.

Same with they human eye, whereby the light sensitive cells are actually behind the nerves so it’s not as efficient as it could be.

I think the point is, if DNA were intelligently designed, we’d be way more efficient — less prone to illness, our eyes would be able to detect X-ray and ultra violet (things that cause damage), we’d regrow teeth, limbs, etc.

Looking at a human being, there is SO much I’d change if I were to deign it. But evolution explains the deficiencies.



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

And just to clarify I’m not saying it’s impossible that some intelligent alien race diddled with our DNA hundreds of thousands of years ago. It’s possible. But there’s no evidence of it. Sadly...😉



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope


A code that works does not have to be programmed, it can happen by accident.

Life found ways to cope with random code fragments.


A code that length by accident is childish to believe
Also, childish to have a code and no creator and no reader of the code, it’s useless with out a creator and activator to read it
Cart before the horse



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I'll just leave this here, it's a fun experiment concerning the use or adaptations of "random" elements within evolution.




posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

What do you mean by reader and activator? Do you mean someone who physically reads the code and executes the code?

If so, then code doesn’t need a ‘reader’ - it only needs to be run. I could write code to do something everything 1 minute. It doesn’t need someone to physically read it to be ‘code’. It as it stands is a set of instructions on how to do something.

So DNA is just that, a set of instructions. It worked for millions of years before we as humans could ‘read’ the genetic sequences of it. And it wouldn’t be anything at all without us as humans for it to be executed on/within/upon, however you see it.

To that end, I don’t see why it needs a ‘designer’. Again, the imperfections and inefficiencies of DNA clearly show that if there was some intelligent designer behind it (aliens, gods, etc) then they are pretty poor at design. I would have done a much better job.



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

Your post is just hyperbole without any evidence. Dawkins says when you look at Biological systems the logical inference to make is that is was designed for a purpose.

Here's a quote from blind Darwinist and athiest Richard Dawkins.

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

In science and just in everyday life we make inferences. If I go outside of my house and it looked like it rained and everywhere I'm driving it looks like it rained, I can make an inference that it rained even though I haven't seen one raindrop.

Here you have Dawkins admitting that when looking at biological systems the correct inference to make is that they were designed for a purpose.

That's the logical and most reasoned inference to make when looking at biological systems.

I just say my first logical inference that biological systems were designed is my last logical inference. I haven't seen anything in a natural interpretation of evolution that refutes that logical inference.

Dawkins doesn't just say Biology looks designed. Something that looks designed is a snowflake. He said it looks designed for a purpose. A snowflake doesn't look like it has a purpose, just a pretty design. If the snowflake was encoded with information in it's sequence to build a snowman and also encoded with the information to build the machinery to assemble the snowman, then it would be design with a purpose.

So like Dawkins, I see biological systems and I make the logical inference that Dawkins makes and I don't see anything from a natural interpretation of evolution to change the logical inference that me and Dawkins agree on.

I talked about how evolution is modular. Here's some papers from those who support a natural interpretation of evolution admitting to it's modular design.

Self-Assembly of Protein Machines: Evidence for Evolution or Creation? reasons.org... eation

Modularity Enhances the Rate of Evolution in a Rugged Fitness Landscape arxiv.org...

Quasispecies Theory for Evolution of Modularity arxiv.org...

Common sense tells them that modular design is the product of intelligence. Also, with a natural interpretation of evolution, first the pieces have to evolve separately in a random, natural and purposeless way.

We know that when an intelligent mind builds a machine or a modular home, the intelligent mind first designs the parts. These parts are the right shape, size and come together at the right angles to work together to carry out different tasks.

Environmental pressures don't create the parts that just happen to work together. Environmental pressures and natural selection are things that happen AFTER THE FACT. They happen after the designed parts reach the environment.

Why would something random, natural and purposeless evolve any parts that work together? Where's the evolution of information? Where's the evolution of these parts?

Again, hyperbole is meaningless. You have to explain how something natural and random encoded information on the sequence of a storage medium digitally and in this code was encoded instructions to build modular machines with different parts that work together.

I know when I go into a factory and see parts of a machine that work together and are the right size and shape they were designed by intelligence. You can't just say a happy, natural accident caused this. This shows this is a blind belief. Where's the evidence?



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I look at it like this.

A truly random universe would never be anything but random. Once any happy accident occurs, it instantly goes back to randomness, that wouldn't be any different than nothingness.

Laws of nature are not random. Gravity doesn't attract one minute then repel the next, then disappear and reappear. These laws keep the balance needed to maintain stability throughout the entire universe. We, as humans, are too short sighted and narrow minded to comprehend that the events we understand as random are anything but random. The stability of an incomprehensibly huge and complex system like the physical universe is proof enough for me that something is in complete control of it all, I call that thing, you know "the thing", I call it God.
edit on 22-1-2021 by MichiganSwampBuck because: For Clarity



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

Seriously, you just asked that sincerely
I can’t answer, cos I can’t dumb it down anymore



posted on Jan, 22 2021 @ 09:25 PM
link   
When the letter spell out "I kill you"
Then you can worry !



posted on Jan, 23 2021 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

We dont know how life started in fact we may never know. We have a couple of ideas how it might be possible. But without a time machine im not sure this can be solved. In the end doesnt matter how life got here if it was created or rose from a chemical soup. Whatever the cause 3.5 billion years ago life started to evolve. This evolution took a long time and we can see its successes and failures in the fossil record.

At best we can only argue what might have happened when it comes to where life came from so im not sure its even worth trying ubtil we learn more.



posted on Jan, 23 2021 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Living organisms are very complex, there's no doubt about that I hope we can agree. Attempting to dumb them down into human (or creationist) understandings of machines and codes is facile and pointless.

If, and that is a very big if, there was a god or a bunch of them, they have long frigged off somewhere else more interesting than this universe. Their project planet is falling apart and they ain't here to fix it.



posted on Jan, 23 2021 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Jesus man. I try to actually engage with you honestly, sincerely and you STILL reply like a complete ass*ole.

I genuinely don’t understand what your problem is...



posted on Jan, 23 2021 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Your post is just hyperbole without any evidence. Dawkins says when you look at Biological systems the logical inference to make is that is was designed for a purpose.

Here's a quote from blind Darwinist and athiest Richard Dawkins.

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”


Yes...’the appearance of having been designed’. But not designed. At no point did I suggest anything otherwise, apart from a joking comment about alien intervention.


Here you have Dawkins admitting that when looking at biological systems the correct inference to make is that they were designed for a purpose. That's the logical and most reasoned inference to make when looking at biological systems.


No, that’s what someone who hasn’t studied evolution would ‘assume’ or infer.


I know when I go into a factory and see parts of a machine that work together and are the right size and shape they were designed by intelligence. You can't just say a happy, natural accident caused this.

No, what idiot would, when it’s very obvious that such metallic, clearly manufactured objects and machines do not occur naturally in nature.


This shows this is a blind belief. Where's the evidence?

Ok, clearly, you’re of the God or supernatural ilk who believe we were created by something ‘out there’ and nothing will change your mind on that.

But as I asked before, if we were designed by some ‘intelligence’ — what sort of crap intelligence is it? That would design a replication system that fails so easily causing the offspring to be genetically impaired, or horrible diseases?

When humans build machines, they try to choose materials that don’t break down or wear out. How many robotics engineers choose cartilage as the joint mechanism in their machines? Or sound systems that wear out when the hairs in them die off?

The point is, life on earth makes sense from a Darwinian, evolutionary standpoint. Not from an intelligent designer standpoint.
edit on 23-1-2021 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2021 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

A bad design?

Says the guy whose design is so bad you're on your a computer typing.

A design so bad over 107 billion people have lived since the dawn of civilization including countless animals.

A design so bad the humans that were designed can create computers, beautiful art, gorgeous cities and more.

A design so bad, that it created Einstein, Hawking, Godel, Schrodinger, Heisenberg and more scienties that have made amazing discoveries about the nature of reality.

A design so bad, it created men that have built satellites and rovers that explore space and put men on the moon.

A design so bad, it created human that create flat screen TV's, Microwave oven, air conditioners, computers, super computers, artificial intelligence, CRISPR, electric cars, space stations, the internet and more.

THIS IS AN ASANINE ARGUMENT!

It's funny, I just was watching a debate a few days ago and and a blind darwinist made the same ridiculous argument while standing at a podium, talking to an audience in a beautiful lecture hall in a beautiful college campus created by a bad designer


You said:

When humans build machines, they try to choose materials that don’t break down or wear out.

First off, your statement supports intelligent design. This is the reason why everything is being switched to digital. They do that so information can be duplicated and transmitted more efficiently vs. analog like a cassette tape that wears out faster.

Your bad designer created a code that stores information digitally. It's so bad that Bill Gates said this about DNA.

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.” - Bill Gates

This bad design is SO BAD that it has endured for billions of years as it has been duplicated. This design is SO BAD that it correlates information in a way that leaves scientist baffled who themselves were created by this BAD DESIGN!

DNA information: from digital code to analogue structure


Abstract

The digital linear coding carried by the base pairs in the DNA double helix is now known to have an important component that acts by altering, along its length, the natural shape and stiffness of the molecule. In this way, one region of DNA is structurally distinguished from another, constituting an additional form of encoded information manifest in three-dimensional space. These shape and stiffness variations help in guiding and facilitating the DNA during its three-dimensional spatial interactions. Such interactions with itself allow communication between genes and enhanced wrapping and histone-octamer binding within the nucleosome core particle. Meanwhile, interactions with proteins can have a reduced entropic binding penalty owing to advantageous sequence-dependent bending anisotropy. Sequence periodicity within the DNA, giving a corresponding structural periodicity of shape and stiffness, also influences the supercoiling of the molecule, which, in turn, plays an important facilitating role. In effect, the super-helical density acts as an analogue regulatory mode in contrast to the more commonly acknowledged purely digital mode. Many of these ideas are still poorly understood, and represent a fundamental and outstanding biological question. This review gives an overview of very recent developments, and hopefully identifies promising future lines of enquiry.


pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information


Abstract

Understanding genetic regulation is a problem of fundamental importance. Recent studies have made it increasingly evident that, whereas the cellular genetic regulation system embodies multiple disparate elements engaged in numerous interactions, the central issue is the genuine function of the DNA molecule as information carrier. Compelling evidence suggests that the DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer. These two DNA information types are intrinsically coupled in the primary sequence organisation, and this coupling is directly relevant to regulation of the genetic function. In this review, we emphasise the critical need of holistic integration of the DNA information as a prerequisite for understanding the organisational complexity of the genetic regulation system.


link.springer.com...

organisational complexity of the genetic regulation system.

This design is SO BAD and SO INEFFICIENT we might use this same bad design to store all of the worlds data in one room.

DNA could store all of the world's data in one room


Humanity has a data storage problem: More data were created in the past 2 years than in all of preceding history. And that torrent of information may soon outstrip the ability of hard drives to capture it. Now, researchers report that they’ve come up with a new way to encode digital data in DNA to create the highest-density large-scale data storage scheme ever invented. Capable of storing 215 petabytes (215 million gigabytes) in a single gram of DNA, the system could, in principle, store every bit of datum ever recorded by humans in a container about the size and weight of a couple of pickup trucks. But whether the technology takes off may depend on its cost.

DNA has many advantages for storing digital data. It’s ultracompact, and it can last hundreds of thousands of years if kept in a cool, dry place. And as long as human societies are reading and writing DNA, they will be able to decode it. “DNA won’t degrade over time like cassette tapes and CDs, and it won’t become obsolete,” says Yaniv Erlich, a computer scientist at Columbia University. And unlike other high-density approaches, such as manipulating individual atoms on a surface, new technologies can write and read large amounts of DNA at a time, allowing it to be scaled up.


www.sciencemag.org...

Please don't make an ASANINE argument like this again while sitting in a house or an apartment, on a computer, eating food you brought from a grocery store that all were disigned by a bad designer LOL!

edit on 23-1-2021 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)







 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join