Search This Blog

Friday, August 24, 2012

More information!!!! Darwinists claim DNA does not hold information? Seriously?


Lets see what real science thinks.   The operative word is "information" here.  I will bold and blue the word when it is used.   The article uses that specific word five times and also uses words associated with information several times:  Data.  Read.  Write.  Instruction.  Author.  Code.  The scientists did not use Darwinist blather to accomplish this.  They recognized that DNA is a complex and rich coding tool/medium and used it to store information, although not as efficiently as the actual DNA in a living cell because that is more complicated.   They also recognized that errors (mutations) in their own writings needed to be error-checked and prevented.   Because mutations don't provide information, they ruin it.  Just keeping it real...

Book written in DNA code

Scientists who encoded the book say it could soon be cheaper to store information in DNA than in conventional digital devices
Two molecules of DNA
Book of life: DNA is the ultimate compact storage medium. Photograph: Alamy
Scientists have for the first time used DNA to encode the contents of a book. At 53,000 words, and including 11 images and a computer program, it is the largest amount of data yet stored artificially using the genetic material.

The researchers claim that the cost of DNA coding is dropping so quickly that within five to 10 years it could be cheaper to store information using this method than in conventional digital devices.

Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA – the chemical that stores genetic instructions in almost all known organisms – has an impressive data capacity. One gram can store up to 455bn gigabytes: the contents of more than 100bn DVDs, making it the ultimate in compact storage media.

A three-strong team led by Professor George Church of Harvard Medical School has now demonstrated that the technology to store data in DNA, while still slow, is becoming more practical. They report in the journal Science that the 5.27 megabit collection of data they stored is more than 600 times bigger than the largest dataset previously encoded this way.

Writing the data to DNA took several days. "This is currently something for archival storage," explained co-author Dr Sriram Kosuri of Harvard's Wyss Institute, "but the timing is continually improving."

DNA has numerous advantages over traditional digital storage media. It can be easily copied, and is often still readable after thousands of years in non-ideal conditions. Unlike ever-changing electronic storage formats such as magnetic tape and DVDs, the fundamental techniques required to read and write DNA information are as old as life on Earth.

The researchers, who have filed a provisional patent application covering the idea, used off-the-shelf components to demonstrate their technique.

To maximise the reliability of their method, and keep costs down, they avoided the need to create very long sequences of code – something that is much more expensive than creating lots of short chunks of DNA. The data was split into fragments that could be written very reliably, and was accompanied by an address book listing where to find each code section.

Digital data is traditionally stored as binary code: ones and zeros. Although DNA offers the ability to use four "numbers": A, C, G and T, to minimise errors Church's team decided to stick with binary encoding, with A and C both indicating zero, and G and T representing one.

The sequence of the artificial DNA was built up letter by letter using existing methods with the string of As, Cs, Ts and Gs coding for the letters of the book.

The team developed a system in which an inkjet printer embeds short fragments of that artificially synthesised DNA onto a glass chip. Each DNA fragment also contains a digital address code that denotes its location within the original file.

The fragments on the chip can later be "read" using standard techniques of the sort used to decipher the sequence of ancient DNA found in archeological material. A computer can then reassemble the original file in the right order using the address codes.

The book – an HTML draft of a volume co-authored by the team leader – was written to the DNA with images embedded to demonstrate the storage medium's versatility.

DNA is such a dense storage system because it is three-dimensional. Other advanced storage media, including experimental ones such as positioning individual atoms on a surface, are essentially confined to two dimensions.

The work did not involve living organisms, which would have introduced unnecessary complications and some risks. The biological function of a cell could be affected and portions of DNA not used by the cell could be removed or mutated. "If the goal is information storage, there's no need to use a cell," said Kosuri.

The data cannot be overwritten but, given the storage capacity, that is seen as a minor issue. The exercise was not completely error-free, but of the 5.27m bits stored, only 10 were found to be incorrect. The team suggests common error-checking techniques could be implemented in future, including multiple copies of the same information so mistakes can be easily identified.

The costs of DNA-handling tools are not yet competitive enough to make this a large-scale storage medium. But the costs and scale of the tools are dropping much more quickly than their electronic equivalents. For example, handheld DNA sequencers are becoming available, which the authors suggest should greatly simplify information stored in DNA.

Kosuri foresees this revolution in DNA technologies continuing. "We may hit a wall, but there's no fundamental reason why it shouldn't continue."


All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs.   All data is information, but not all information is data.   

"The data cannot be overwritten but, given the storage capacity, that is seen as a minor issue. The exercise was not completely error-free, but of the 5.27m bits stored, only 10 were found to be incorrect. The team suggests common error-checking techniques could be implemented in future, including multiple copies of the same information so mistakes can be easily identified."

Yes, just as real DNA has error-checking functions and redundancies to avoid mutations, the team writing information into DNA recognized that their "mutations" were harmful and recognized the need to come up with ways to prevent them from happening as much as possible.

Soon such research will all begin to fit together - Information science, Biomimetics, Biomimicry, Cellular Microbiology, Genetics...and of course Intelligent Design research...and then the world of science will suddenly realize that Darwinism is backwards - it describes devolution, the destruction of life rather than the creation of life.   Those who built reputations as pro-Darwinist will have to change their tunes or leave the world of real science altogether.    Then advances in medicine in particular will move along faster and the world of academia will join real science in renouncing Darwinism.    Finally popular culture will realize that Darwinism was a charade and a farce and move on.

Evolution is stupid!

From that website:

  • The big bang exists only on the blackboard, and in the imagination.
  • The formation of the universe exists only in drawings and the imagination.
  • The formation of the solar system exists only in drawings and the imagination.
  • The beginnings of life on earth are products of the imagination and nothing more.
  • The so-called "soup" from which life had its beginnings never existed.
  • The rise of life from non-life is not possible, and is a fairy tale.
  • The rise of complexity in life is also a fairy tale, and product of the imagination.
  • The transformation from "simple" to more complex life forms could not have occurred.
  • Mutations, which supposedly drive evolution, do no such thing, and you know it.
  • There is no way that the diversity of life could be a product of chance, and you know it.
  • There is no way that human beings could have come from single-celled organisms.
  • And you know it.
Yes, I know it.   Eventually the whole world will figure it out!  Animaxander was wrong and Darwin was just another atheopath looking for a way out of dealing with God.  Darwinism is not science.  It is just bad philosophy converted into widely-accepted mythology.