Ah, another one of Chan's alter egos pimping Chan ideas trying to beef himself
up.
Not worth responding to.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: leaking pen
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
You are in error my friend, is condescending and rude. There is no need to
speak that way.
On the contrary, there are most certainly codings within cells that kill
cells that change badly, be it from damage during mitosis or bad transcription
of dna. When these processes fail, we get cancer. In addition isn't ALL natural
selection an issue of the cellular or dna level? The changes that express
themselves are caused at the cellular or dna level. For example, there is a
major difference between the hemoglobin of humans and other species that has a
MASSIVE influence on efficiency. Its an about 25 percent difference in
efficiency. Caused by 3, count them THREE different amino acids in one protein.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are in error my friend. You come to this conclusion only because you
make the first erroneous assumption that there is "natural selection" occuring.
Nothing can me more unsupported than this speculation.
As I've mentioned, Natural Selection does not occur at the cellular or DNA
level. There is no arbiter within the cell that tells which changes are to be
retained and which are to be discarded.
Jojo
----- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax"
<a...@lomaxdesign.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>; <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
At 08:26 PM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Well, Jed's story says that we can "store" exabytes of data.
Yes, but only if we don't mind that it's exabytes of copies of about 1.5
gigabytes of data.
Nowadays, we only use the "coding" part of DNA to figure out the amount
of "information". Scientists erroneously assume the non-coding parts are "junk
DNA" that have no information. That is not true. The non-coding parts are not
Junk. Newer research are indicating that all of our DNA have functions we
still do not know or understand. If they have function, they contain
information we don't know about yet.
That's an exaggeration of "new research." Some functions are being found
for some "noncoding" DNA. I've understood "noncoding DNA" to refer to sequences
that are not used to create proteins. There can be a few other functions, for
example, telomeres are noncoding, but serve to protect chromosomes from copying
errors at the ends.
There is an interesting piece of evidence. Noncoding DNA much more
rapidly mutates because of lack of selection pressure. Noncoding DNA gives a
measure of time since organisms diverged. If this DNA were serving a critical
biological function, it would be under selection pressure.
(Most mutations of critical genes kill the cell or the organism, babies
spontaneously abort, etc.)
