The views expressed by Lomax below are typical of those who have not read
Darwin's book or understand what Darwinian Evolution really says.
Natural Selection is not the process of DNA building, it is the macro result
of mutations. Mutations are the mechanism Darwin claims to be behind
changes. The changes result in a survival advantage, hence Natural
Selection occurs. Hence the process is in fact a random process.
It is important for us to understand that Natural Selection does not occur
at the cellular or DNA level. In other words, there is no Natural Selection
mechanism to determine at the cellular/DNA level what random mutation is to
be retained. That mutation has to cause a change in the macro organism that
would confer a survival advantage before Natural Selection can be invoked.
You can have many many many mutations or changes at the cellular level but
only when changes confer a survival advantage does that mutation get
retained. Retention of changes occur at the individual to offspring level -
a macro level, not at the cellular/DNA level.
If there is no reproduction, there is no Natural Selection. If there is no
"survival advantage", there is no Natural Selection. If you understand
this, you will understand how utterly impropable Darwinian Evolution is. If
we have had infinite time, then yes Darwinian Evolution is possible, but we
only have had 4 billion years since the creation of the Earth and 15 billion
years since the creation of the Universe. Not enough time.
(Note, that I do not personally subscribe the the 4 billion Earth age nor to
the 15 billion age of the Universe. I just mention it to highlight the
utter fallacy of Darwinian Evolution.)
Jojo
PS. BTW, I did not start this thread lest Lomax and Jouni will claim that I
am starting a trolling thread again.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Natural Selection can not explain how random process can originate
information; let alone exabytes of information present in DNA in its
natural state.
Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there exabytes of
information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy of our set.
It's far, far less than that.
But, of course, Darwinian Evolutionist are right because there's 2000 of
them and nobody has heard on one of them being threatened or bribed.
Gee, bringing in two separate contentious issues at once, like AGW and
Evolution.
"Darwinian Evolution" uses the name of a person. Why? Do we care about
persons, or do we care about principles?
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>Jed Rothwell
To: <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:32 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into this as part
of an essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see:
<http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf>http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf
This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting with
recording data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it back,
with only a few errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, making it "the
biggest best seller in history" in a sense.
Quote: "DNA storage is very dense. At theoretical maximum, DNA can encode
two bits per nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . ."
I'd like to confirm I have the units right here --
Present world data storage is variously estimated between 295 exabytes in
2011 to 2,700 exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672
(295 exabytes)
<http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q>http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q
(2.7 ZB)
I don't know what source to believe.
This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a great deal of
electricity. On NHK they estimated the number of bytes of data now exceeds
the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. Assume it is
2.7 ZB. That seems like a large number until you realize that you could
record all of this data in 6 grams of DNA.
That demonstrates how much our technology may improve in the future. We
have a lot of leeway. There is still "plenty of room at the bottom" as
Feynman put it.
DNA preserves data far better than any human technology. It can also copy
it faster and more accurately by far. I mean by many orders of magnitude.
It might be difficult to make a rapid, on-line electronic interface to DNA
recorded data, similar to today's hard disk. But as a back up medium, or
long-term storage, it seems promising. As Prof. Church demonstrates, this
technology may come about as a spin off from genome-reading technology.
Perhaps there are other 3-dimensional molecular methods of data storage.
Maybe, but I would say why bother looking for them when nature has already
found such a robust system?
- Jed
