Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheFormless0ne t1_ixxz9pi wrote

Before clicking the link: what the fuck does this mean?

54

Eskaminagaga t1_ixxzl04 wrote

So data could already be stored in DNA form. Each of the 4 acids being present in a strand of DNA being associated with digital data. Just build a stand of DNA encoded with that digital data. Now, they have found a way to alter sections of that DNA like you can change digital data.

45

aloneforevaprolly t1_ixz5c9y wrote

Doesn’t translation and transcription already do this with Okazaki fragments & tRNA?

1

OkConstruction4591 t1_ixzu63a wrote

I'm not quite sure what that has to do with encoding digital data, since Okazaki fragments are, AFAIK, involved in replication of DNA and neither transcription nor translation, and are also complementary to the template DNA strand so no "new" data is really being created... I guess you could say that those specific 'bits' are being inverted, but I fail to see how this is linked to the article...

2

aloneforevaprolly t1_ixzuvn7 wrote

It’s also involved in cell proliferation which is why I wondered about new data. Because it does create new “data” and doesn’t just replicate from mRNA

0

OkConstruction4591 t1_ixzyoh5 wrote

Could you elaborate on how exactly it is involved in cell proliferation, in your perspective? I don't think we're on the same page here.

1

aloneforevaprolly t1_iy00pln wrote

Because the codon that makes up Okazaki fragments are genes or new genetic information. I was wondering what the difference is between what our bodies naturally do to create new biological information compared to what this article refers to.

−1

Eskaminagaga t1_ixzh2i9 wrote

I dont know enough about the process to be able to answer that

1

aloneforevaprolly t1_ixzi8bk wrote

Essentially Okazaki fragments are codons (a combination of 3 Nucleic acids) that are replicated and produced over and over and later added to the lagging strand of DNA. During this process the codons are not all the same and it’s creating new data in a sense. Just I was just curious as to what the difference was because it’s very interesting

2

Sorin61 OP t1_ixxzzgf wrote

DNA = nature’s massive data storage

If you click on article you’ll read:

<<…They are experimenting with a new approach using enzymes and artificial neurons and neural networks for direct operations on DNA data.

Specifically, the researchers have made use of the reactions of three enzymes to design chemical “neurons” that reproduce the network architecture and ability for complex calculations exhibited by true neurons. Their chemical neurons can execute calculations with data on DNA strands…>>

29

opprovarun t1_ixygyth wrote

It means humans are about to make some gnarly mosnters now

5

Hangarnut t1_ixy1r1a wrote

I read years ago humans are basically biological technology! Brains= computers, Eyes = cameras, Muscles = hydraulic movement

We are literally biological structures with an amazing technological structure.

21

[deleted] t1_ixyjreg wrote

I thought this too. But recently I came upon a counter argument that humans tend to describe things with the most advanced technology available to them at the time.

If we go back to the past, most things were described as transcendental, spiritual and natural in order to explain physical reality. Even though we know the Antikythera mechanism is 2000 years old, humans have not described the world as machinery or computers until recently.

It may seem obvious we will continue this trajectory of technological advancement. But we cannot say for certain what new means will be adopted into technology to achieve better understanding of the world around us. As such, we may use different descriptions for physical reality and change our understanding completely to a combination that emphasis less on computer systems.

Everything is just an information system within a bigger system of information. It would appear obvious to me that we’re reverse engineering to get the answer of how the world works by stopping at our current understanding and believing it’s the final answer.

14

Tura63 t1_ixzamwx wrote

Well, despite the flaw that one could always make that argument from a psychological point of view without addressing the content of the explanation, the bigger flaw in that criticism is that computers aren't just the current most advanced form of technology, they're universal simulators. No previous technology has that feature.

Computation is deeply connected with the laws of physics though the Turing principle. Any physical system can be simulated on a universal computer. It's not an analogy that brains are like computers. It's a deep principle of physics and computation which means that there isn't a different kind of machine that a brain could be.

Of course, knowledge is always conjectural, which means anything could be overturned someday. But what is one to do, in the absence of better explanations? One should take our best explanations seriously. Especially since denying the computable nature of the world breaks most other reasonable explanations we have.

3

DeveloperHistorian t1_ixyh5xh wrote

Life is the most advanced type of technology in the universe

6

[deleted] t1_ixym1jv wrote

[deleted]

−17

ShadowMercure t1_ixyq57m wrote

Someone did downvote you, but honestly yeah. Look I was an atheist and now I’m agnostic - I don’t say there is or isn’t a God, but I am fairly certain there is a “creator”. I don’t think it’s a religious thing, more so a cause and effect thing. Science currently tells us something cannot come from nothing. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is not impossible that there was an initial force of energy that caused the Big Bang and had this space we call reality good to go.

Whether it was sentient, whether it was humanoid like us, whether it had a physical form at all - we don’t know. Personally the farthest I’d go to say there’s a creator is that there was a force that led to our existence. That’s it. Whether it can hear prayer or answer questions is unlikely. But whether it caused existence itself? Whatever it is? To me it’s almost certain.

Even with simulation theory, it requires an entity to have initiated the beginning of the simulation.

Even with the Big Bang, it requires an initial burst of energy to initiate that.

Even with religion, it required a creator to do those things.

Even with stone cold rational science, “every action has an equal and opposite reaction” that law should apply to our very existence itself. Something caused it. We don’t know what. I personally call it “God”. I don’t think it’s a person. Just a force, nothing more.

−6

Sloofin t1_ixyufjj wrote

You’ve not come across the infinite regress argument yet? So if there must be a first cause, ie the Big Bang needed a “creator”, who created the creator, or what was it’s first cause? And if he/she/it doesn’t need a first cause (usually what religious types will say at this point of the discussion) then why the exception, ie why doesn’t the creator need a first cause but the universe does?

9

ShadowMercure t1_ixz5ohf wrote

My answer to that is a question - if something can continue in perpetuity, why does that mean it did not have a beginning? Can infinitely begin after a beginning? Where a line starts, why does that mean it has to end? For the ball to roll, it must at some point begin to roll. At least, in our version of reality.

We know in our reality, that things start, things continue and then things end. So the “what came before that” cycle that continues infinitely shouldn’t really be possible, because there must be a definite stop point according to our laws of logic.

However the endless question is interesting because - what did make “God”? And what made that? And is our reality the only reality? Is there a sea of failed universes with broken physics out there? Are there others just like us? It is boundless curiosity. But in truth, we will never know nor comprehend what created the creator - and the endless loop that follows - in its entirety. Because we are not equipped to truly deal with “infinity” - it is unimaginable.

My personal belief, is that space-time together with all matter and all concepts we associate with reality, had an origin point that existed beyond space-time. Where “infinity” might be a thought experiment here, but is a straight up “default” mode of the void out there. Time doesn’t move where space doesn’t exist. But where did the creator come from if it exists in the void? What made it? What if the creator is the void?

Do you see where I’m going with this? Probably not, because this thought process will lead one to insanity. Such concepts are unimaginable. We will never understand it. Because again, in our world, cause and effect is the name of the game. But out there, beyond the universe? We cannot even theorise, because we are only built to understand our own.

In short, my belief is that there’s a creating source that made everything. What is beyond that? I dunno, I can’t even think about it. It’s like a syntax error. In the bounds of our own domain, we can only say something created us. What created them exists beyond every physical law we know. Hence my brainstorming ends at what I see as the beginning of our reality, I cannot fathom the beginning of the creating force’s reality. It is beyond us.

−3

Sloofin t1_ixz634y wrote

Luckily for us, others are working very hard on it :)

3

L0nely_L0ner t1_ixzpoov wrote

My man, if you think there is a "creator", then you are not agnostic. Lmao

2

ShadowMercure t1_iy25g70 wrote

I’m not a creationist lol. When I say creator I mean a creating force. Did you read the rest of what I said? I’m as agnostic as they come.

0

johnnyytrash t1_ixy50kz wrote

This does seem chill, not discrediting that. How is this not just CRISPR with extra steps?

10

gedbybee t1_ixy9bcd wrote

Crispr is just messing with a single beings dna. This is read write where anything can be stored. I’m assuming they have a specific language cuz tgac is different than 1 and 0. So you could have all of humanity’s published information on some amount of dna and it’ll only take up like a thimble. AFAIK, crispr is just like adding in a gene or deleting a gene. It’s not even writing for a person to grow wings or something. Much more basic.

8

smidspin t1_ixyavww wrote

Probably just encode the 1s and 0s into tagc. In pairs. That's the beautiful thing about binary.

4

QuestionableAI t1_ixy1h3z wrote

G, C, A, T versus only two elements 1 and/or 0 .... which is greater, 4 or 2 in terms of combination? If you can do quizellionaites (yeah, I made it up but point being the expansion of 1 and 0 to the billions ... this is a serious freaking game changer.

But I no longer know what the game is about.

3

semperverus t1_ixyhp1c wrote

I think with DNA, it's still base-2, since you have to combine two letters together to make a single bond in the chain.

1

Nine_Eye_Ron t1_ixy9nnm wrote

So writing on your arm doesn’t work?

2

GWtech t1_ixydbqh wrote

At this point it wouldn't surprise me at all if the old science fiction idea that aliens created our race simply to store information for themselves that they could extract millions of years later turned out to be true.

2

saraphilipp t1_ixy6fmh wrote

Finally get that song thats stuck in my head out.

1

poiisons t1_ixy6m0z wrote

-puts Caramelldansen in my DNA like a Spotify QR code-

1

MetalGuyver t1_ixyj341 wrote

Looks at Ein from cowboy bebop

1

QuestionableNotion t1_ixz26c1 wrote

I am amazed at how much sci-fi in Star Trek later became reality.

In the Star Trek: Enterprise pilot, there was a Klingon courier who needed to be taken back to his home world. It turned out that the data he was carrying was stored in his DNA.

1

The_Linguist_LL t1_iy16voc wrote

CeNa is much more efficient, let's skip DNA

1

mcjambrose t1_iy3abn1 wrote

Wait, the just figuring this out! Just kidding I have no idea what they're talking about

1

No_Formal_8697 t1_ixzje2c wrote

Find the frequency’s of (A, T, C, or G) and you’re a step closer

0

Readityesterday2 t1_ixyqesm wrote

There’s no “digital” data on DNA. You mean it’s beepin and tweetin for the op lol

−2

Pale_Establishment32 t1_ixyr91m wrote

Soooo basically dna blood tests have been manipulated from the start.? Just turn off that bogus axx child support so I can be great in life already

−3

zillskillnillfrill t1_ixy2pij wrote

DNA doesn't have digital data. It's literally the opposite. (as in Biological)

−9

AikidokaUK t1_ixy3oce wrote

Interesting way to say that you don't understand what digital is

10

FrustratedLogician t1_ixy58dq wrote

I also don't understand what digital means in biological structure.

2

AikidokaUK t1_ixy735y wrote

Digital is basically, like a light switch, on or off, which is shown as 1 and 0. This strung together can represent numbers 0 to 9, every letter of the alphabet and special characters.

DNA is made up of 4 chemical bases, which are represented by the letters: A, C, G & T.

Now if you you use the base of 4 (A, C, G & T) instead of a base of 2 (1 & 0), you can effectively use the DNA structure to represent what binary represents, just way more efficiently. A bit like the use of Qubits in quantum computing.

5

nexisfan t1_ixy7im6 wrote

Soooo… the difference between binary, normal computers and quantum computers, right? But maybe one level above because instead of 1 and 0 in both their possible stages ( so four total) it’s 1, 2, 3, and 4, in all their possible combining states

1

AikidokaUK t1_ixy80t6 wrote

Yarp. Though afaik, it can only be used for storage, not processing, unlike QC

2

nexisfan t1_ixy89j0 wrote

Well, obviously it processes. Otherwise we wouldn’t exist. We might just not have figured out an artificial process for such expressions

1

AikidokaUK t1_ixy8ssb wrote

When I say processing, I mean the calculations that current silicone chips carry out that ultimately manipulates something electronically, not biologically processing DNA information.

We don't have any sort of interface for that........ Yet

2