The first Britons were black, Natural History Museum DNA study reveals

alluseridsrejected said:
Oh, excuse me. Yes, more robust, not more efficient. That is straw you are grasping at? I am wrong because I used a different word describing the idea that the paper is saying one is better than the other?
Click to expand...
Words matter, and you have been, IMO, misusing them throughout. Anologies and comparisons use sets of words that may or may not be analogous to each other such as "DNA and "Computer". That doesn't constitute that two different things are the same, simply because a comparison can be made, as you are demanding in this thread.

alluseridsrejected said:
Does it count if I can point to where scientist have done that in the laboratory? Or can I wait until 2020 when Microsoft says the will have a DNA computer so I can do it in Windows?:
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't count. Scientists didn't plop a piece of DNA on a petri dish, hook wires to it and stand in awe of the computational power of DNA.

If fact, if you had read your article that YOU posted, it says they are using the DNA for storage of data, not for computation. As for the "DNA Computer" by Ross D King.. the DNA had to be engineered, molecule by molecule, to build a "processor". This DNA is not found in nature and was created, not because DNA 'computes' but rather because of the properties (Speed, propagation, etc) of DNA are sought after for applications in technology. In fact, in the DNA computer, the function of the genetically engineered DNA isn't even to compute, it's to replicate very simply more processors over time. So, again, you have missed the entire point of your article.

So, a very simple question. If natural DNA that is found in 'us' is really a computer.... why do scientists have to create DNA processors instead of simply use DNA as the processor it already is? The answer is DNA isn't a computer... just like Silicon isn't a computer - not until someone makes it so.

I will mention that the DNA Computer is only theoretical in the sense that they have to make it work on a large scale. A quote from Ross D King: "the DNA is edited or preprogrammed to replicate and carry out an exponential number of computational paths."

See, no computation.. DNA is used for replication. It had to be pre-programmed for this task as well. Let's see your natural non-engineered DNA do that.
 
alluseridsrejected said:
Here is the storage part. They have done everything in your requirements in the laboratory, I have to find the links to them though:
Click to expand...
Storing information is not processing information. We all know DNA can hold information.

PS: It was you that said
alluseridsrejected said:
Nothing you just said is true. We have not made DNA, not even close. Please provide sources.
Click to expand...

You're now conceding that we have, so you were wrong there too.
 
phaZed said:
See, no computation.. DNA is used for replication. It had to be pre-programmed for this task as well. Let's see your natural non-engineered DNA do that.
Click to expand...

You are really desperate to prove DNA is not a computer in the face of the overwhelming science that clearly proves it is. I agree the example I gave is for storage. But it is not the only use for DNA. I clearly said I would fins other links for you. And with silicon, we are truely starting from scratch. That is simply not the case with DNA. If it were, they would be starting with Deoxyribose, Adenine, Phosphate, Polymerase to make the DNA. They are not. The experiments I have read about, they use bacteria DNA to build the computers from. The fact it is not Windows ready out of the box does not mean it is not a computer.

Leonard Adelman. Father of DNA computing said he saw what is going on in DNA as computation. I take his word over yours:

https://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/adleman_7308544.cfm
"Len saw the biochemical processes of the cell as computation."

Where is your Turing award?
 
alluseridsrejected said:
I am still waiting on a reply concerning moltuae's claim it is just a metaphor so I will repeat it for here:

Why do you think it matters whether or not it is a metaphor? It is completely and totally meaningless. If someone knows Windows and wants to learn Linux, a popular methods of teaching the new system is by using metaphors. So if I teach you Linux using metaphors, after we are done, which of those is no longer a computer? I mean it was just a metaphor. What matters is does it compute? And the genome CLEARLY AND INDISPUTABLY computes. Therefore it IS a computer and NOT just a metaphor.
Click to expand...

My point was simply that our definition of a computer here is unimportant. Whether or not we agree to call the genome a computer changes nothing. It's not the label but how it operates that's important. And I see nothing to suggest that it operates in a way that requires a creator.

Your logic seems to be:

It's a "computer" ----> Computers need a creator/programmer ----> God did it.​

Is that correct? ... Or am I missing some steps?

Can you please explain what part of this 'computer' could not possibly occur naturally.
 
alluseridsrejected said:
You are really desperate to prove DNA is not a computer in the face of the overwhelming science that clearly proves it is.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to prove anything, you are. This is how it works, the person with the claim has to prove their position, not that the "other person" has to disprove your claim. YOU have to prove it. We all get to point out why your "Proof" is ludicrous.

You still have not provided any proof or anybody saying that DNA IS a computer, only that DNA can be compared to computers in their hierarchical structure, that's it. We are waiting anxiously for the Turing Prize winner that has proven DNA is a computer. Seems everything I read says DNA is a data replicator. Anytime now.

alluseridsrejected said:
If it were, they would be starting with Deoxyribose, Adenine, Phosphate, Polymerase to make the DNA. They are not.
Click to expand...

Dude, they made the DNA computer molecule-by-molecule - which in the physics world, trumps your requirement to start with compounds. If you don't at least understand that, then you are hopeless..

alluseridsrejected said:
The experiments I have read about, they use bacteria DNA to build the computers from. The fact it is not Windows ready out of the box does not mean it is not a computer.
Click to expand...
Great, let's see that article. No one is asking DNA-built computers to be Windows ready, so you can stop saying it - it proves nor changes nothing when you do. We all know, on the computer forum, that a Casio calculator is a "computer" and doesn't run Windows. We got it.

This is a computer, too (Babbage Difference Engine):
Difference_engine_plate_1853.jpg


Yet, I don't see you claiming everything with a gear, the same as DNA. Cars are DNA, winches are DNA, etc.
 
alluseridsrejected said:
Maybe the part that peer reviewed science says can't/couldn't have. Can you show me evidence it is unreasonable to think computers need programmers?
Click to expand...
Ok, which part? Where is the computer code or characteristic that defies a natural/scientific explanation? Stating that it 'computes' is not enough. Let's look at HOW it computes.
 
alluseridsrejected said:
Maybe the part that peer reviewed science says can't/couldn't have. Can you show me evidence it is unreasonable to think computers need programmers?
Click to expand...

EEENNNGGG, wrong again! Where does peer-reviewed science say that? Simply because you can't prove your untenable position doesn't now mean that we have to first, concede that DNA is a computer - and second, prove the "unreasonableness" scientifically. Computers need programmers, DNA doesn't. Yet another striking difference between the two, strengthening my position. Weakening yours.
 
While the points posted above yesterday are very easily addressed (and many already have been by me within this thread), they are getting too triggered to respond to. So I will end my posts to this thread for now and say good bye.
 
When DNA replicates data it has a small chance to screw up in the process. That process results in new DNA that may or may not be beneficial, if it's beneficial it'll replicate and spread, if it's not it won't.

So I don't think it's fair to say DNA is a computer, it's just a storage medium. Life as an expression of DNA is what provides the motive parts to make the decision making engine. We call that decision making engine natural selection.

So you can say Earth is a computer... but that's a bit of a stretch, but you can say it.
 
phaZed said:
Click to expand...

Very relevant video. Like when an industry leader like Leonard Adleman, complete genius, co-inventor of the term "computer virus". winner of Turing Award, co-inventor of RSA encryption, and father of an entire revolutionary field of computer science called DNA Computing, says he sees:

"the biochemical processes of the cell as computation"

and then lowly computer tech/s who owe much of their career to Len from all the money they made off computer viruses say in denial of Len's computation claims ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top