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

alluseridsrejected said:
It is about our origins. So you are allowed to state what you think about our origins but I am not allowed to? To me, discovering the genome is a computer was an incredible revelation that got me questioning everything I was told.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not stating anything. I'm simply pointing out that you have made leaps that are unsubstantiated. We have made DNA in a lab, we have even made "life" from scratch in a lab. We didn't have to design it, we only had to provide the necessary ingredients and life emerged. That has been tested, repeatedly. Your hypothesis has not been tested AT ALL.

You have still not provided your evidence that DNA is a computer, you simply keep asserting it.

EDIT: Also, why do you not say "Computers are DNA", since computers came last?
 
phaZed said:
No, I'm not stating anything. I'm simply pointing out that you have made leaps that are unsubstantiated. We have made DNA in a lab, we have even made "life" from scratch in a lab. We didn't have to design it, we only had to provide the necessary ingredients and life emerged. That has been tested, repeatedly. Your hypothesis has not been tested AT ALL.

You have still not provided your evidence that DNA is a computer, you simply keep asserting it.
Click to expand...

Nothing you just said is true. We have not made DNA, not even close. Please provide sources.

If the genome is not a computer. Why is it that the same computer geek developer guy, Leonard Adleman, that co-coined the term "computer virus" and that won the Turing Award (considered the Nobel Prize of Computer Science) for his role in bringing us RSA Encryption we use in computing today, is the very same exact guy that said he "saw the biochemical processes of the cell as computation" and showed the world how to program on DNA and is called "The Father of DNA Computing"?

Why is it a computer geek is the father of DNA computing if the genome is not a computer?

https://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/adleman_7308544.cfm
 
I already did give you the Google results, but I guess I will pick through that for you, too.
Scientists build DNA from scratch to alter life's blueprint
Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'
Organisms created with synthetic DNA pave way for entirely new life forms


So, where did Leonard Adleman prove that DNA is a computer again? Your just asserting your view on the premise that because a 'guy' coined a term in computer science and presupposed something, that it is science.
From the Turing Website:
.... Len saw the biochemical processes of the cell as computation. Like a Turing machine that runs along a tape processing symbolic information, polymerase runs along a strand of DNA processing chemical information.
Great scientific breakthroughs sometimes arise from the realization that two seemingly unrelated fields are, in fact, related. In this regard, Len proved to be more than just a brilliant theoretician. By encoding a small instance of the NP-complete Hamiltonian Path problem in strands of DNA and then experimentally computing its solution, Len created what is probably the first computational device at a molecular scale. For this work [4] Len has been widely credited as the "Father of DNA Computing...."
Click to expand...

So how does Len, modifying the DNA to perform computations, prove DNA is a computer? If DNA were a computer, Len wouldn't have needed to modify it to do computation. Take special note that Len even recognizes that its the polymerase that processes the DNA, not the DNA itself.

The definition of a computer is "a device that can store, retrieve and process data." DNA can only store and replicate (existing) data. It can't retrieve data nor can it process data. I'm speaking of natural DNA and not synthetic. So, you're a few criteria short.
 
Last edited:
phaZed said:
I already did give you the Google results, but I guess I will pick through that for you, too.
Scientists build DNA from scratch to alter life's blueprint
Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'
Organisms created with synthetic DNA pave way for entirely new life forms


So, where did Leonard Adleman prove that DNA is a computer again? Your just asserting your view on the premise that because a 'guy' coined a term in computer science and presupposed something, that it is science.
From the Turing Website:


So how does Len, modifying the DNA to perform computations, prove DNA is a computer? If DNA were a computer, Len wouldn't have needed to modify it to do computation.

The definition of a computer is "a device that can store, retrieve and process data." DNA can only store and replicate (existing) data. It can't retrieve data nor can it process data. I'm speaking of natural DNA and not synthetic. So, you're a few criteria short.
Click to expand...

From your first link:

The project has so far reported building about one-third of the yeast genome.

a better title would be:
Scientists are attempting for the very first time to build DNA from scratch, 1/3 there, to alter life's blueprint

and from your second link:

"Dr Venter compared his work with the building of a computer. Making the artificial DNA was the equivalent of creating the software for the operating system. Transferring it to a cell was like loading it into the hardware and running the programme." "The resulting "synthetic cell" was then "rebooted" and it started to replicate."
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point, The genome is a computer!

but it is another misleading headline:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/21/venter.qa/index.html
Venter: We created a new cell. It's alive. But we didn't create life from scratch.

We created. as all life on this planet is. out of a living cell.
Click to expand...

They created life out of an already living cell. OMG LOL

In fact, in none of your links have they created life from scratch. Modified it? Yes, they have modified it.
 
phaZed said:
So how does Len, modifying the DNA to perform computations, prove DNA is a computer? If DNA were a computer, Len wouldn't have needed to modify it to do computation.
Click to expand...

That makes zero sense. I didn't say it was windows ready. The question is, does it compute, and if it does, it is a computer. , but according to M$ it will be by 2020
because:

"Moore’s Law will run out soon"? And "At a certain point, the silicon will be too small and thin for the heat it’ll endure and it’ll fry itself". So what will replace the microchip?
Click to expand...

Answer: DNA

http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/microsoft-plans-to-have-a-dna-based-computer-by-2020
 
alluseridsrejected said:
Yes, in in my mind, computers need programmers. And it would be unreasonable to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Who makes the programmers? Look at it this way either
1. Some thing/being/god or whatever created the universe OR
2. Nothing created the universe, it "just emerged"

If 1. then this thing\being\god also "just emerged". Also the thing/being/god is, by necessity, more complex than the universe since a creation cannot be beyond the creators ability to conceptualise.

So, you can believe that something i.e. the more complex thing can "just emerge", entirely without evidence, but you cannot believe that the less complex thing can "just emerge", with evidence. Occam's Razor, man.
 
So I'm thinking the way forward for this thread is to do something like this:

First Briton was black > DNA is a computer > Intelligent Design > man creates/modifies life > Should abortion be legal if we make life this way > Should Synthetic humans have gun rights > Trump should give/remove synth rights > Hitler somehow
 
The first people everywhere were darker skinned, as Neanderthal man (and woman) were global before modern man (Cro-Magnon).
There was a time of crossover, co-existing with each other. Overlapping if you will. Many theories out there about there....were they peaceful? Did the war against each other? Capture/rape/slavery/kill of each other? Knowing "people"..probably did.

Most anthropologists agree on around 40,000 years ago is when Neanderthals started fading away...becoming extinct. But it's been shown that small pockets of population have survived to much more recent times.

Anthropology and the history of mankind was a huge hobby of mine a long time ago. One of my favorite series of books..."Earths Children" series...by Jean M Auel. Focused on the crossover times between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top