is DNA stupid?

R. Steve Walz wrote:


In your opinion what way has he been misquoted?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

------------------------------ You did so by taking what he said out of its context, and away from its meaning, and you do this because you are a schizophrenic.
You need meds. You proved this with your fractal robot delusions, while your ideas were good you have no ability to manage your ideas in a reasoned and reasonable manner. You cling to trivia as if it were a basis, while ignoring truly fundamental issues, you, sir, are an unfortunate nutcake. You will continue to be an unfortunate until and unless you seek medical assistance and accept their advice and help.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A nucleotide is not a bit either. But it's closer to a bit than a byte.
A typical gene might have 3,000,000,000/40,000 = 75,000 "bigbits" <> nucleotides
So one gene could encode (approximately) 3^75,000 bits.
20,000 genes could encode (3^75,000)^20,000 bits.
That should suffice to make (at least) a schizophrenic.
Or a moron.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Karen J wrote:

---------------------- A base pair is either GC CG AT or TA, that's four states, so each base pair is like two bits. Then a codon of three is 4*4*4 or 64, which is 2^6. Now 3.2 billion base pairs in the human genome makes 12.8 billion bits, or 1.6 Gigabytes. Think of that as one number, and all its possible values!! Whooooooeeeee!!

-------------------------------- Like 'e7' who is actually J. Michael, the crank responsible for the "Fractal Robot" debacle of a few years back, he's a schizophrenic.

------------- And to think, I said that even before I went to his website and discovered it was him!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am not following you. If there are 3.2 billion base pairs and each base pair contains two bits of information, then the total cannot be larger than 6.4 billion bits of information.
--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guy Macon wrote:

--------------- Ooops! Right. Error. So that's ~~ 800 MBytes.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Me ( snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com):

I apologize. I posted in haste. Your explanation is clearer and more accurate than mine (although essentially the same, of course).

If you keep thinking along these lines you will realize that you could well be a cybersoul in a supercomputer a million years in the future.
Then you might read "Pigs in Cyberspace" and realize that you ACTUALLY ARE a cybersoul in a supercomputer a million years in the future.
Then you will understand that anyone who doesn't accept that she/he is a cybersoul is either a schizophrenic or a moron and needs help.
$1500/month would be enough. And probably cheaper than all the "help" the government is presently supplying to schizophrenics and morons. karen715j
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Karen J wrote:

----------------- You don't understand, there is no future and no past, all births occur at the same time, and so do all deaths. Every day is actually the very same day, just as every second is the very same second. And no cybersoul is needed nor is any supercomputer. Life is the Infinite Imagination, that is all it is and all that it ever has to be to Live an Infinite number of Lives.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz snipped-for-privacy@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not needed. Just more likely. Much, much, much, much more likely.
There are many patterns. Some are more likely than others. For instance: The Walz pattern is generated an infinite number of times in "wild" self-generated universes. But it is also generated by SISS's (SuperInelligentSuperSouls) an infinite number of times. The second infinity is much, much, much, much larger than the first. (See Cantor about infinities that are bigger than each other.)

This is all blather. A tale told by two idiots, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Here's what's important: Kindness. Honesty. The meta-golden rule.
- karen715j
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Karen J wrote:

Ach Noooooooooo! This has been ripped out from some trancendental meditation book hasn't it?

Awoo! PLEHEASE! Since when did we get into all this wet soppy stuff?
I thought we were on DNA information transfer topic.
The general consensus seems to be DNA doesn't code personality - it must be learned. Nobody accepts Chomsky's scientific result that 95% of personality is built in.
I don't agree with that until Chomsky is scientifically debunked.
Its an impass for now to locate the personality coding/transfer mechanism.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why are you so confident in Chomsky?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom McEwan wrote:

Who's asking?
I haven't seen Chomsky debunked yet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

Chomsky is a linguistic philosopher or a philosophical linguist.
If you've studied this field at *all*, you'd know that many other experts in this field think that he's a crackpot. Others think he's *the* expert.
I'm somewhat in the middle. He did some brilliant work when he was younger. This work was in linguistics and the structure of language. His later work tends to be extremely convoluted and strange.
He is not an expert in intelligence or genetics.
Frankly *we* don't have to debunk him.
You are the one quoting a rather questionable "expert".
Could you give us a reference to the *complete* book or paper where he makes this assertion? If he didn't back it up with facts, then it's already debunked.
And if you can't provide the evidence, you have no basis on which to discuss this. -- D. Jay Newman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
D. Jay Newman wrote:

You have no idea about his science or how to debunk him and parrot others selectively what suits you best. Your methods are questionable. You just have to debunk one of his work. The result that 95% bit is pre-programmed.
J
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
e7 wrote:

Sorry, but this *is* the field I studied in college.
I have not been able to find any reference to your statement. And I spent part of last night searching the internet and my books.
So nobody has to debunk anything that you won't actually bring up to the table. -- D. Jay Newman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Someone who considers himself relatively intelligent, and who also remains thus far unconvinced of your hypothsesis or indeed your ability to present a coherent, balanced or even grammatically correct argument. By the way, you'll get nowhere fast saying things like "Who's asking?" in a scientific discussion. Just a hint for the future. Science and engineering is about rational thought and reasonable, open-minded discussion - save the aggression and defensive questions for politics. And for God's sake, never discount the possibility that you just might be dead wrong.
You can't seriously expect to vehemently tell us that Chomsky's correct and then refuse to explain why you think so.

Just because nobody's bothered to debunk it doesn't make it gospel truth. It's entirely possible that it's never been debunked because it's not considered plausible enough to be worth debunking. Unless you've got absolutely uncontestable, reproducable experimental proof, you're a fool to believe one person's hypothesis against accepted theory.
Tom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom McEwan wrote:

The question is rhetorical - why are you not confident in Chomsky?

It takes 5 minutes to debunk his theory. But nobody under any tests since his time have done so. They have re-enforced his results. The gospel truth has been written out for you to follow. If you don't a gospel truth, just try to debunk it and then we will see.

Ouch that hurts! :-) Nah! You just try to debunk him as someone who considers himself as relatively intelligent good sir!

What's this end of post throw away remark all about? His result (not theory) has not been debunked.
J
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It would take an infinite amount of time to debunk it to the satisfaction of a dimwit who refuses to admit to simple math errors. You are too stubborn and crazy to admit that you were wrong about there being 20,000 bits of information in the genome, so we can predict that you will be too stubborn and crazy to admit that you were wrong about Chomsky, no matter how good the refutation is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com wrote:

In general, I notice if you post from America, you take your eyes off the subject and focus on some person rather than the topic under discussion. I wonder why that is? Do find that easy or is it just that you are taught to respong like that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hint: if you are going to cut and paste your responses, use a spell checker first. You will still look like a buffoon, but at least you will look like a semi-literate buffoon.
The problem with cut and paste is that one reply rarely fits three posts. In my case, I am focusing of you math error and you are scurrying like a cockroach when the lights come on in a desperate attempt to change the subject.
DEAL WITH YOUR MATH ERROR!! DO IT NOW!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.