subject:"\[Vo\]\:Digital information storage in DNA"

By tinkering with this junk DNA, genetics experts have reawakened long
suppressed dinosaur-like traits in a modified chicken.


Cheers:  Axil

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:

 Genetics experts stopped calling the non-coding regions 'junk' some time
 ago.   They might say something like 'what used to be called junk DNA'.   I
 have been wondering whether certain aspects of the information that defines
 an organism is not contained in the DNA, but instead certain specific
 regions of the DNA are able to 'tune into' information from previous
 generations of the organism which have similar sequences.

 Nigel


 On 28/12/2012 01:38, David Roberson wrote:

 It is funny when I hear of junk DNA as described by the genetics
 experts.  Why choose to call something unknown as junk instead of just
 admitting that it is not understood?  Reminds me of the old theory about
 the amount of one's brain that is being used.  I just wish people would lay
 out the facts that they know and not judge the unknowns.  I guess some
 would call LENR junk physics!


 Dave

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Axil, I think you mentioned this before.

The question is,  is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur?  Or is it 
simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant.  

For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are.  It is 
irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs.  We don't know 
that.  It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself.

People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that 
chickens evolved from dinosaurs.  But that is just a theory springing up from 
our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct.  We can not assume 
Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to 
dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian 
Evolution.  That is circular reasoning.

The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk DNA are 
actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant.  During 
microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes.  
The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA.  Microevolution, not 
Darwinian Evolution.  Big difference and people always confuse the issue.  They 
think that just because we see changes, that that automatically imply Darwinian 
Evolution is occuring.  Yes, evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution.



Jojo





  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 4:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  By tinkering with this junk DNA, genetics experts have reawakened long 
suppressed dinosaur-like traits in a modified chicken.


  Cheers:  Axil


  On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:

Genetics experts stopped calling the non-coding regions 'junk' some time 
ago.   They might say something like 'what used to be called junk DNA'.   I 
have been wondering whether certain aspects of the information that defines an 
organism is not contained in the DNA, but instead certain specific regions of 
the DNA are able to 'tune into' information from previous generations of the 
organism which have similar sequences.

Nigel


On 28/12/2012 01:38, David Roberson wrote:

  It is funny when I hear of junk DNA as described by the genetics 
experts.  Why choose to call something unknown as junk instead of just 
admitting that it is not understood?  Reminds me of the old theory about the 
amount of one's brain that is being used.  I just wish people would lay out the 
facts that they know and not judge the unknowns.  I guess some would call LENR 
junk physics!


  Dave

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

2012-12-29 Thread Nigel Dyer

My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each 
day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA 
sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to 
homo sapiens.
This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from 
one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short 
hand as 'Darwinian Evolution'.  I am nevertheless always more than happy 
to discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed 
during that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, 
as there are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be 
asked.
The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds.  It is possible that 
Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian 
Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and 
relativity.  Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete 
picture.  Ditto Darwinian evolution.


Nigel

On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Axil, I think you mentioned this before.

The question is,  is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur?  Or is it 
simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant.

For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are.  It is 
irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs.  We don't know 
that.  It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself.

People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume that 
chickens evolved from dinosaurs.  But that is just a theory springing up from 
our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct.  We can not assume 
Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to 
dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian 
Evolution.  That is circular reasoning.

The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk DNA are 
actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant.  During microevolution, some of 
these traits are expressed and the chicken changes.  The changes are conferred by what is 
already in the DNA.  Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution.  Big difference and people 
always confuse the issue.  They think that just because we see changes, that that 
automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring.  Yes, evolution is occuring, but not 
Darwinian Evolution.



Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Nigel, I would love to discuss DNA sequences with you.  Honestly, I would 
like to really understand why people say that Darwinian Evolution is true. 
For example, I would like to know which basic tenet of Darwinian Evolution 
you're referring to.


But, before we begin, I need a promise that no matter how heated our 
disagreement becomes, that no insults be thrown.  If you are capable of 
doing that, I would love to discuss this with you.



Are you a Microbiologist?  If so, I am looking forward to asking a bunch of 
questions.


What is your field of training if you don't mind me asking.  As for me, I 
have degrees in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.  Recently, I've 
dabbled in Agriculture and Animal Science.






Jojo



- Original Message - 
From: Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each 
day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA 
sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to 
homo sapiens.
This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from one 
through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand as 
'Darwinian Evolution'.  I am nevertheless always more than happy to 
discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during 
that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there 
are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked.
The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds.  It is possible that 
Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian 
Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and 
relativity.  Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete 
picture.  Ditto Darwinian evolution.


Nigel

On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote:

Axil, I think you mentioned this before.

The question is,  is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur?  Or is 
it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant.


For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are.  It 
is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs.  We don't 
know that.  It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself.


People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume 
that chickens evolved from dinosaurs.  But that is just a theory 
springing up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct.  We 
can not assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits 
in chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is 
proof of Darwinian Evolution.  That is circular reasoning.


The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk 
DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant. 
During microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken 
changes.  The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA. 
Microevolution, not Darwinian Evolution.  Big difference and people 
always confuse the issue.  They think that just because we see changes, 
that that automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring.  Yes, 
evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution.




Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not
interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that
element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say what
God’s plan of creation is?

Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup
evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect
life from the whims of the universe.


Cheers:Axil

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:

 My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each
 day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA
 sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo
 sapiens.
 This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from one
 through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand as
 'Darwinian Evolution'.  I am nevertheless always more than happy to discuss
 the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during that
 process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there are
 many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked.
 The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds.  It is possible that
 Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian
 Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and
 relativity.  Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture.
  Ditto Darwinian evolution.

 Nigel


 On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote:

 Axil, I think you mentioned this before.

 The question is,  is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur?  Or is
 it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant.

 For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are.  It
 is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs.  We don't
 know that.  It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself.

 People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume
 that chickens evolved from dinosaurs.  But that is just a theory springing
 up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct.  We can not
 assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in
 chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof
 of Darwinian Evolution.  That is circular reasoning.

 The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk
 DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant.  During
 microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes.
  The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA.  Microevolution,
 not Darwinian Evolution.  Big difference and people always confuse the
 issue.  They think that just because we see changes, that that
 automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring.  Yes, evolution is
 occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution.



 Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve and 
protect life.  It's called microevolution.  God has put on the genone all the 
necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt to 
stressess.  The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already encoded in 
its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new environment.And 
how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect life.

My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called microevolution.  
My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian Evolution theory that 
speculates that changes are due to random mutation and that a species can 
evolve into another species.  It's this whole nonsense of Tree of life that 
says we all came from single celled organisms; that I have a problem with.




Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not 
interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. 
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

  Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say what 
God’s plan of creation is?

  Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup 
evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect 
life from the whims of the universe.


  Cheers:Axil



  On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:

My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each day 
looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA sequences of 
different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo sapiens.
This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from one 
through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand as 
'Darwinian Evolution'.  I am nevertheless always more than happy to discuss the 
details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during that process, and 
the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there are many unanswered, 
and extremely interesting, questions to be asked.
The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds.  It is possible that 
Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian Physics is 
to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and relativity.  
Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture.  Ditto Darwinian 
evolution.

Nigel


On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote:

  Axil, I think you mentioned this before.

  The question is,  is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur?  Or is 
it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant.

  For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are.  It 
is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs.  We don't know 
that.  It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself.

  People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume 
that chickens evolved from dinosaurs.  But that is just a theory springing up 
from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct.  We can not assume 
Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in chickens belong to 
dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof of Darwinian 
Evolution.  That is circular reasoning.

  The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk 
DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant.  During 
microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes.  
The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA.  Microevolution, not 
Darwinian Evolution.  Big difference and people always confuse the issue.  They 
think that just because we see changes, that that automatically imply Darwinian 
Evolution is occuring.  Yes, evolution is occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution.



  Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the
error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is
factually true and must be believed as written.

You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth.

This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in its
proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as
property.

Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all human
cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future.

Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error
exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to
assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject
to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not
for me.


Cheers:Axil

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve and
 protect life.  It's called microevolution.  God has put on the genone all
 the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt to
 stressess.  The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already encoded
 in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new environment.
 And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect life.

 My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called
 microevolution.  My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian
 Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation
 and that a species can evolve into another species.  It's this whole
 nonsense of Tree of life that says we all came from single celled
 organisms; that I have a problem with.




 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

 Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not
 interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that
 element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

 Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say what
 God’s plan of creation is?

 Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup
 evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect
 life from the whims of the universe.


 Cheers:Axil

 On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:

 My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each
 day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA
 sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo
 sapiens.
 This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from
 one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand
 as 'Darwinian Evolution'.  I am nevertheless always more than happy to
 discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during
 that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there
 are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked.
 The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds.  It is possible that
 Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian
 Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and
 relativity.  Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture.
  Ditto Darwinian evolution.

 Nigel


 On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote:

 Axil, I think you mentioned this before.

 The question is,  is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur?  Or is
 it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant.

 For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are.  It
 is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs.  We don't
 know that.  It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself.

 People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume
 that chickens evolved from dinosaurs.  But that is just a theory springing
 up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct.  We can not
 assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in
 chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof
 of Darwinian Evolution.  That is circular reasoning.

 The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk
 DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant.  During
 microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes.
  The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA.  Microevolution,
 not Darwinian Evolution.  Big difference and people always confuse the
 issue.  They think that just because we see changes, that that
 automatically imply Darwinian Evolution is occuring.  Yes, evolution is
 occuring, but not Darwinian Evolution.



 Jojo

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

2012-12-29 Thread leaking pen

I hate to say Amen Brother, and sound cliche, but, Amen Brother!

Alexander Hollins

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the
 error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is
 factually true and must be believed as written.

 You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth.

 This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in
 its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as
 property.

 Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all
 human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future.

 Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error
 exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to
 assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject
 to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not
 for me.


 Cheers:Axil

 On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve
 and protect life.  It's called microevolution.  God has put on the genone
 all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt
 to stressess.  The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already
 encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new
 environment.And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect
 life.

 My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called
 microevolution.  My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian
 Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation
 and that a species can evolve into another species.  It's this whole
 nonsense of Tree of life that says we all came from single celled
 organisms; that I have a problem with.




 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

 Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not
 interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that
 element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

 Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say
 what God’s plan of creation is?

 Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup
 evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect
 life from the whims of the universe.


 Cheers:Axil

 On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:

 My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each
 day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA
 sequences of different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo
 sapiens.
 This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the species 'evolved' from
 one through to the next in a way that is normally described in short hand
 as 'Darwinian Evolution'.  I am nevertheless always more than happy to
 discuss the details as to the mechanisms by which the DNA changed during
 that process, and the relationship between DNA sequence and form, as there
 are many unanswered, and extremely interesting, questions to be asked.
 The basic tenet of Darwian Evolution still holds.  It is possible that
 Darwinian Evolution is to the final evolutionary theory as Newtonian
 Physics is to the final physics theory incorporating quantum theory and
 relativity.  Newtonian physics is not wrong, just not the complete picture.
  Ditto Darwinian evolution.

 Nigel


 On 29/12/2012 10:06, Jojo Jaro wrote:

 Axil, I think you mentioned this before.

 The question is,  is this trait really a trait from the dinosaur?  Or
 is it simply a trait of the chicken that laid dormant.

 For one thing, we don't really know what Dinosaur traits there are.  It
 is irresponsible to say a specific trait belongs to dinosaurs.  We don't
 know that.  It could simply be part of the trait of the chicken itself.

 People ascribe these traits to dinosaurs only because they first assume
 that chickens evolved from dinosaurs.  But that is just a theory springing
 up from our assumption that Darwinian Evolution is correct.  We can not
 assume Darwinian Evolution is correct then speculate that traits in
 chickens belong to dinasaurs and then turn around and say the this is proof
 of Darwinian Evolution.  That is circular reasoning.

 The most probable thing is that these traits in these so called Junk
 DNA are actual coded traits of the Chicken DNA that laid dormant.  During
 microevolution, some of these traits are expressed and the chicken changes.
  The changes are conferred by what is already in the DNA.  Microevolution,
 not Darwinian Evolution.  Big difference and people always confuse the
 issue.  They think

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Fair enough.

Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it.  There 
are as you say, corrupt and sinful men.  However, many of the retrograde acts 
like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ.  That is the mark 
of a real teacher.

The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other than 
the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness.  I think you are 
confusing this with how islam treats women.

You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in special 
circumstances, like the testing of Abraham.  And as Christians, we call these 
retrograde acts as sins and disavow it.  Unlike some people who justify it.

Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth.  In my decades of studying 
the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of things I 
still do not understand.  These are the things that I take by faith for now.  
Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical statement that I have 
found to contradict what we categorically know as fact in science.  The Bible 
contradicts pseudoscience like Darwinian Evolution, but not true scientific 
facts like the Earth is round.  One only needs to study it with objectivity to 
see it.  

The Bible is not the work of mere men.  The Bible is written by men as they 
were moved by the Holy Spirit.  That is how the Bible could proclaim that the 
Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such facts.  The 
Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written over a span of 
over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the Earth was round.

The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global Internet.  In 
my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global surveillance system 
using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion.  Time will tell that the Bible is 
correct again and again.



Jojo

  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the error 
free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is factually true 
and must be believed as written.

  You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth.

  This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in its 
proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as property.
   
  Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all human 
cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future.

  Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error 
exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to assume 
that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject to like 
errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not for me.


  Cheers:Axil



  On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve and 
protect life.  It's called microevolution.  God has put on the genone all the 
necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt to 
stressess.  The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already encoded in 
its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new environment.And 
how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect life.

My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called 
microevolution.  My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian Evolution 
theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation and that a 
species can evolve into another species.  It's this whole nonsense of Tree 
of life that says we all came from single celled organisms; that I have a 
problem with.




Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not 
interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. 
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

  Who is arrogant enough to say what is in the mind of God. Who can say 
what God’s plan of creation is?

  Yes, there is Devine wisdom in God’s plan. If I were God, I would setup 
evolution as a master plan for the creation of life to preserve and protect 
life from the whims of the universe.


  Cheers:Axil



  On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:00 AM, Nigel Dyer l...@thedyers.org.uk wrote:

My paid employment means that I spend significant numbers of hours each 
day looking at DNA sequences, and the relationship between the DNA sequences of 
different species, from single celled bacteria through to homo sapiens

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust of
his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated
in the Old Testament.

From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to
rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct
those flaws.

The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant.

In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety
violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old
covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age.



Cheers:   axil

On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Fair enough.

 Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it.
 There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men.  However, many of the
 retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus
 Christ.  That is the mark of a real teacher.

 The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other
 than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness.  I think you
 are confusing this with how islam treats women.

 You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in
 special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham.  And as Christians, we
 call these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it.  Unlike some people who
 justify it.

 Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth.  In my decades of
 studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot
 of things I still do not understand.  These are the things that I take by
 faith for now.  Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical
 statement that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as
 fact in science.  The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like
 Darwinian Evolution, but not true scientific facts like the Earth is
 round.  One only needs to study it with objectivity to see it.

 The Bible is not the work of mere men.  The Bible is written by men as
 they were moved by the Holy Spirit.  That is how the Bible could proclaim
 that the Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such
 facts.  The Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written
 over a span of over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the
 Earth was round.

 The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global
 Internet.  In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global
 surveillance system using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion.  Time will
 tell that the Bible is correct again and again.



 Jojo


 - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

 As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the
 error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is
 factually true and must be believed as written.

 You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth.

 This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in
 its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as
 property.

 Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all
 human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future.

 Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error
 exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to
 assume that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject
 to like errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not
 for me.


 Cheers:Axil

 On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Yes, Axil, as a matter of fact, God did set up evolution to preserve
 and protect life.  It's called microevolution.  God has put on the genone
 all the necessary tools that an organism needs to rapidly change and adapt
 to stressess.  The organism merely expresses a dormant trait already
 encoded in its DNA and this new trait enables him to adapt to a new
 environment.And how wonderfully that has worked to preserve and protect
 life.

 My issue is not that evolution happens, it does, it's called
 microevolution.  My issue is with the crackpot swiss cheese Darwinian
 Evolution theory that speculates that changes are due to random mutation
 and that a species can evolve into another species.  It's this whole
 nonsense of Tree of life that says we all came from single celled
 organisms; that I have a problem with.




 Jojo




  - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
  *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:56 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

  Albert Einstein: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not
 interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that
 element. I want to know His

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the Old 
Testament, only controlled and condoned.

Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant,  the real Old Covenant with God 
the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it  has become by the time he 
entered  the scene.

One famous scholar once said.  The Old Testament is in the New Testament 
revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed.

There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments.  The New is the 
completion of the Old.  But we must make a distinction between what is really 
the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from Pagan 
Babylon.

Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's 
teachings.  Far from it.  Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old 
Testament and said it was true.  You will not find Christ or any of the New 
Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament.  They took it as 
literal truth.  


Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust of 
his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated in 
the Old Testament.

  From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to 
rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct those 
flaws.

  The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant.

  In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety 
violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old 
covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age.



  Cheers:   axil



  On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

Fair enough.

Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it.  
There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men.  However, many of the retrograde 
acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ.  That is the 
mark of a real teacher.

The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property other 
than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness.  I think you are 
confusing this with how islam treats women.

You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in special 
circumstances, like the testing of Abraham.  And as Christians, we call these 
retrograde acts as sins and disavow it.  Unlike some people who justify it.

Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth.  In my decades of 
studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of 
things I still do not understand.  These are the things that I take by faith 
for now.  Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical statement 
that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as fact in science.  
The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like Darwinian Evolution, but not true 
scientific facts like the Earth is round.  One only needs to study it with 
objectivity to see it.  

The Bible is not the work of mere men.  The Bible is written by men as they 
were moved by the Holy Spirit.  That is how the Bible could proclaim that the 
Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such facts.  The 
Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written over a span of 
over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the Earth was round.

The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global Internet. 
 In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global surveillance system 
using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion.  Time will tell that the Bible is 
correct again and again.



Jojo

  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the 
error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is factually 
true and must be believed as written.

  You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth.

  This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in 
its proclamation of laws condoning slavery and the ownership of woman as 
property.
   
  Truth in the bible must be universal for all times and applied to all 
human cultures that have developed, or could possibly develop in the future.

  Being the work of fallible human authors and editors, if one such error 
exists contrary to my conscience, then in my view it is reasonable to assume 
that other parts of the entire content of the holy book is subject to like 
errors. Because of this, literal interpretation of the bible is not for me.


  Cheers:Axil



  On Sat, Dec 29

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

The info in the bible was not edited and sanctioned as sacred until the
First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the heretics were identified and the
bible was purified.
Therefore, how could Christ accept a book that had not yet been written?

The Old Testament contains 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) or more
(Orthodox and other) books, divided, very broadly.

There are many versions of the bible accepted by the various sects of
Christian belief.

How can one determine which version of the Bible that Christ favored? He
died before the fact.






axil

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the Old
 Testament, only controlled and condoned.

 Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant,  the real Old Covenant
 with God the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it  has become by the
 time he entered  the scene.

 One famous scholar once said.  The Old Testament is in the New Testament
 revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed.

 There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments.  The New is the
 completion of the Old.  But we must make a distinction between what is
 really the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from
 Pagan Babylon.

 Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's
 teachings.  Far from it.  Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old
 Testament and said it was true.  You will not find Christ or any of the New
 Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament.  They took it as
 literal truth.


 Jojo





 - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

 With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust of
 his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated
 in the Old Testament.

 From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to
 rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct
 those flaws.

 The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant.

 In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety
 violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old
 covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age.



 Cheers:   axil

 On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Fair enough.

 Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require it.
 There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men.  However, many of the
 retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus
 Christ.  That is the mark of a real teacher.

 The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property
 other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness.  I
 think you are confusing this with how islam treats women.

 You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in
 special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham.  And as Christians, we
 call these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it.  Unlike some people who
 justify it.

 Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth.  In my decades of
 studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot
 of things I still do not understand.  These are the things that I take by
 faith for now.  Yet, despite all that, I have not encountered a Biblical
 statement that I have found to contradict what we categorically know as
 fact in science.  The Bible contradicts pseudoscience like
 Darwinian Evolution, but not true scientific facts like the Earth is
 round.  One only needs to study it with objectivity to see it.

 The Bible is not the work of mere men.  The Bible is written by men as
 they were moved by the Holy Spirit.  That is how the Bible could proclaim
 that the Earth was round thousands of year before science discovered such
 facts.  The Bible proclaims this fact 3 times in 3 different books written
 over a span of over a thousand years, but all before man discovered the
 Earth was round.

 The Bible predicted the emerging of Global Live TV and the global
 Internet.  In my opinion, it also predicts the emergence of a global
 surveillance system using autonomous UAV powered by cold fusion.  Time will
 tell that the Bible is correct again and again.



 Jojo


  - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
  *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:02 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

 As I see it, your problem is based on the belief that the bible is the
 error free inspired word of God; and that every one of its words is
 factually true and must be believed as written.

 You are forced to defend every holy word as literal truth.

 This is a road to far for me. For example, I find error in the bible in
 its

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

That is in error, my friend.  The Old Testament was completed several hundreds 
years before Christ.  In fact, the entire Old Testament was translated to Greek 
about 323 BC.  That version of the Old Testatment is known as the Septuagint.

The New Testament books were compiled and assembled by a man named Erasmus.  He 
took the commonly accepted letters and compiled it specifically ignoring 
gnostic works and pseudogospels.

It is a misunderstanding that Constantine assembled the Bible in the Coucil of 
Nicaea.  He did not.  He merely sanctioned and promoted its widespread 
acceptance.

Frankly, I do not considered the Catholic church as Christian.  The Roman 
Catholic Church is the largest Christian cult.  It is so far out in its 
teachings and they do not even claim Biblical authority anymore.  To them, 
traditions, commentary, and papal pronouncements are the true and only 
doctrines of the church.  If there is a conflict between papal pronouncements 
vs Biblical teachings, the papal pronouncements are infallible.  That to me is 
a mark of a cult.  Heck, not even Peter the Apostle or Paul the apostle claimed 
infallibility.  Peter was dinged by Paul when he was in error.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  The info in the bible was not edited and sanctioned as sacred until the First 
Council of Nicaea. At that time, the heretics were identified and the bible was 
purified.
  Therefore, how could Christ accept a book that had not yet been written? 

  The Old Testament contains 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) or more (Orthodox 
and other) books, divided, very broadly.

  There are many versions of the bible accepted by the various sects of 
Christian belief.

  How can one determine which version of the Bible that Christ favored? He died 
before the fact.

   

   


  axil


  On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the Old 
Testament, only controlled and condoned.

Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant,  the real Old Covenant with 
God the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it  has become by the time he 
entered  the scene.

One famous scholar once said.  The Old Testament is in the New Testament 
revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed.

There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments.  The New is the 
completion of the Old.  But we must make a distinction between what is really 
the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from Pagan 
Babylon.

Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's 
teachings.  Far from it.  Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old 
Testament and said it was true.  You will not find Christ or any of the New 
Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament.  They took it as 
literal truth.  


Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: Axil Axil 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust 
of his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults promulgated in 
the Old Testament.

  From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to 
rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct those 
flaws.

  The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant.

  In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety 
violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old 
covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age.



  Cheers:   axil



  On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

Fair enough.

Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require 
it.  There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men.  However, many of the 
retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus Christ.  
That is the mark of a real teacher.

The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property 
other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness.  I think 
you are confusing this with how islam treats women.

You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in 
special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham.  And as Christians, we call 
these retrograde acts as sins and disavow it.  Unlike some people who justify 
it.

Yes, I believe that the Bible is the literal truth.  In my decades of 
studying the Bible and having read it thru over 29 times, there are a lot of 
things I still do not understand.  These are the things that I take by faith 
for now.  Yet, despite all that, I have

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Let me now come to my senses. When the essential beliefs of a person are
questioned, you question the quintessential essence of the person
themselves.

I dare not do that.

I will not change my beliefs and neither will you.

Let be stop before I irrevocable offend you in my zeal to win the argument.


Peace and love my friend:  axil




On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 That is in error, my friend.  The Old Testament was completed several
 hundreds years before Christ.  In fact, the entire Old Testament was
 translated to Greek about 323 BC.  That version of the Old Testatment is
 known as the Septuagint.

 The New Testament books were compiled and assembled by a man named
 Erasmus.  He took the commonly accepted letters and compiled it
 specifically ignoring gnostic works and pseudogospels.

 It is a misunderstanding that Constantine assembled the Bible in the
 Coucil of Nicaea.  He did not.  He merely sanctioned and promoted its
 widespread acceptance.

 Frankly, I do not considered the Catholic church as Christian.  The Roman
 Catholic Church is the largest Christian cult.  It is so far out in its
 teachings and they do not even claim Biblical authority anymore.  To them,
 traditions, commentary, and papal pronouncements are the true and only
 doctrines of the church.  If there is a conflict between papal
 pronouncements vs Biblical teachings, the papal pronouncements are
 infallible.  That to me is a mark of a cult.  Heck, not even Peter the
 Apostle or Paul the apostle claimed infallibility.  Peter was dinged by
 Paul when he was in error.


 Jojo




 - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 2:37 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

 The info in the bible was not edited and sanctioned as sacred until the
 First Council of Nicaea. At that time, the heretics were identified and the
 bible was purified.
 Therefore, how could Christ accept a book that had not yet been written?

 The Old Testament contains 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic) or more
 (Orthodox and other) books, divided, very broadly.

 There are many versions of the bible accepted by the various sects of
 Christian belief.

 How can one determine which version of the Bible that Christ favored? He
 died before the fact.






 axil

 On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 The erroneous acts of polygamy and slavery were never commanded in the
 Old Testament, only controlled and condoned.

 Jesus Christ came to complete the Old Covenant,  the real Old Covenant
 with God the Father, not the corrupted Judaism that it  has become by the
 time he entered  the scene.

 One famous scholar once said.  The Old Testament is in the New Testament
 revealed, while the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed.

 There is no conflict between the Old and New Testaments.  The New is the
 completion of the Old.  But we must make a distinction between what is
 really the Old Testament from the corrupt Talmudic Judasim that came from
 Pagan Babylon.

 Acceptance of the Bible as literal turth in NOT a violation of Christ's
 teachings.  Far from it.  Christ himself extensively quoted from the Old
 Testament and said it was true.  You will not find Christ or any of the New
 Testatment writers denying anything in the Old Testament.  They took it as
 literal truth.


 Jojo





  - Original Message -
 *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
  *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 12:19 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

 With the question of the divinity of Christ set aside, the major thrust
 of his ministry was directed at correcting the abuses and faults
 promulgated in the Old Testament.

 From an early age, Christ knew that the bible was flawed and he strove to
 rewrite it through the inspiration and agency of his disciples to correct
 those flaws.

 The old covenant was replaced by the new covenant.

 In this context, acceptance of the bible as literal true in its entirety
 violates the essence of Christ’s teachings. Christ himself replaced the old
 covenant as not applicable to the new Christian age.



 Cheers:   axil

 On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Fair enough.

 Yes, the Bible does condone many retrograde acts, though not require
 it.  There are as you say, corrupt and sinful men.  However, many of the
 retrograde acts like polygamy and slavery have been stopped by Jesus
 Christ.  That is the mark of a real teacher.

 The Bible does not single out woman as a different class of property
 other than the general concept of slavery due to heavy indebtedness.  I
 think you are confusing this with how islam treats women.

 You will never find the Bible commanding a retrograde act except in
 special circumstances, like the testing of Abraham.  And as Christians, we
 call

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

2012-12-28 Thread Jojo Jaro

If you don't want to read it, then do not mouth off and pretend to be a 
expert in this subject matter.  You know what they say; ...the height of 
ignorance.


At least I have read it, albeit a long time ago.



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 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA



At 11:18 PM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Read Darwin's The origin of Species first before you mouth off with 
these ignorant rantings.


Why should I read it?


This is typical of you, you claim expertise


I have not claimed expertise on this or any other topic. Sometimes I have 
unusual knowledge, but that's not expertise.


Ah, I've claimed expertise on Wikipedia process.

and cloud the debate with irrelevancy and write long boring, tiresome 
irrelevant essays hoping that people don't read it.  It's working for me 
sometimes, I tire of your lengthy hot air.


Can we hope that you will tire all the way?

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

2012-12-28 Thread Nigel Dyer

Genetics experts stopped calling the non-coding regions 'junk' some time 
ago.   They might say something like 'what used to be called junk 
DNA'.   I have been wondering whether certain aspects of the information 
that defines an organism is not contained in the DNA, but instead 
certain specific regions of the DNA are able to 'tune into' information 
from previous generations of the organism which have similar sequences.


Nigel

On 28/12/2012 01:38, David Roberson wrote:

It is funny when I hear of junk DNA as described by the genetics experts.  
Why choose to call something unknown as junk instead of just admitting that it is not 
understood?  Reminds me of the old theory about the amount of one's brain that is being 
used.  I just wish people would lay out the facts that they know and not judge the 
unknowns.  I guess some would call LENR junk physics!


Dave

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Your opinion has certainly been noted by Bill.  Quite obviously, I'm still here 
cause Bill saw nothing that I have done to deserve banning.  But if I am 
banned, it's no great lost for me; so recommend away.  LOL

BTW Jouni, I consider this a personal attack, and this is the 2nd of such 
attack.  Your first attack was an insult by calling me a girl although my 
gender has clearly been established here in Vortex-L.   Now you are calling me 
a troll.  I am letting this 2nd attack as well as your first attack slide.   
Please do not continue this behavior unless you want a retaliation.


Jojo


PS.  This is Jouni's 2nd attack against me.   Note that thus far,  I have NOT 
attacked Jouni or insulted her in any way.  I never start attacks or insults, 
but I will eventually respond to it.  Please refrain from such attacks

PS.  I consider labels such as troll a grave insult.  Let that be clear to 
everyone lest Lomax will claim that it is a mild insult.  Being a liar 
justified by his religion, he would begin building a fallacious history of this 
event again.  






  - Original Message - 
  From: Jouni Valkonen 
  To: William Beaty 
  Cc: Jed Rothwell ; Abd ul-Rahman Lomax ; Jojo Jaro 
  Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 4:31 PM
  Subject: Fwd: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA



  Hello,


  There has been some recent discussion about continuous trolling by Jojo. I 
would highly recommend banning him/her. This message has not much else content 
expect insulting the original author indirectly and political trolling. As Jojo 
proudly admits his/her off-topic/political trolling and he/she is not going to 
end it, I would recommend banning him/her. 


  Thanks in advance,


  —Jouni




  -- Forwarded message --
  From: Jojo Jaro 
  Date: Thursday, 27 December 2012
  Subject: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com



  Yes, digital information is indeed present in DNA.

  One has to wonder how it got there.  Natural Selection can not explain how 
random process can originate information; let alone exabytes of information 
present in DNA in its natural state.

  But, of course, Darwinian Evolutionist are right because there's 2000 of them 
and nobody has heard on one of them being threatened or bribed.


  Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:32 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into this as part 
of an essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see:

http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf

This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting with recording 
data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it back, with only a few 
errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, making it the biggest best seller 
in history in a sense.

Quote: DNA storage is very dense. At theoretical maximum, DNA can encode 
two bits per nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . . 


I'd like to confirm I have the units right here --


Present world data storage is variously estimated between 295 exabytes in 
2011 to 2,700 exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672 (295 exabytes)


http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q (2.7 ZB)


I don't know what source to believe.


This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a great deal of electricity. 
On NHK they estimated the number of bytes of data now exceeds the number of 
grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. Assume it is 2.7 ZB. That seems 
like a large number until you realize that you could record all of this data in 
6 grams of DNA.


That demonstrates how much our technology may improve in the future. We 
have a lot of leeway. There is still plenty of room at the bottom as Feynman 
put it.


DNA preserves data far better than any human technology. It can also copy 
it faster and more accurately by far. I mean by many orders of magnitude.


It might be difficult to make a rapid, on-line electronic interface to DNA 
recorded data, similar to today's hard disk. But as a back up medium, or 
long-term storage, it seems promising. As Prof. Church demonstrates, this 
technology may come about as a spin off from genome-reading technology. Perhaps 
there are other 3-dimensional molecular methods of data storage. Maybe, but I 
would say why bother looking for them when nature has already found such a 
robust system?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

The views expressed by Lomax below are typical of those who have not read 
Darwin's book or understand what Darwinian Evolution really says.


Natural Selection is not the process of DNA building, it is the macro result 
of mutations.  Mutations are the mechanism Darwin claims to be behind 
changes.  The changes result in a survival advantage, hence Natural 
Selection occurs.  Hence the process is in fact a random process.


It is important for us to understand that Natural Selection does not occur 
at the cellular or DNA level.  In other words, there is no Natural Selection 
mechanism to determine at the cellular/DNA level what random mutation is to 
be retained.  That mutation has to cause a change in the macro organism that 
would confer a survival advantage before Natural Selection can be invoked. 
You can have many many many mutations or changes at the cellular level but 
only when changes confer a survival advantage does that mutation get 
retained.  Retention of changes occur at the individual to offspring level - 
a macro level, not at the cellular/DNA level.


If there is no reproduction, there is no Natural Selection.  If there is no 
survival advantage, there is no Natural Selection.  If you understand 
this, you will understand how utterly impropable Darwinian Evolution is.  If 
we have had infinite time, then yes Darwinian Evolution is possible, but we 
only have had 4 billion years since the creation of the Earth and 15 billion 
years since the creation of the Universe.  Not enough time.


(Note, that I do not personally subscribe the the 4 billion Earth age nor to 
the 15 billion age of the Universe.  I just mention it to highlight the 
utter fallacy of Darwinian Evolution.)



Jojo


PS.  BTW, I did not start this thread lest Lomax and Jouni will claim that I 
am starting a trolling thread again.







- Original Message - 
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


Natural Selection can not explain how random process can originate 
information; let alone exabytes of information present in DNA in its 
natural state.


Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there exabytes of 
information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy of our set. 
It's far, far less than that.


But, of course, Darwinian Evolutionist are right because there's 2000 of 
them and nobody has heard on one of them being threatened or bribed.


Gee, bringing in two separate contentious issues at once, like AGW and 
Evolution.


Darwinian Evolution uses the name of a person. Why? Do we care about 
persons, or do we care about principles?





Jojo


- Original Message -
From: mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comJed Rothwell
To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:32 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into this as part 
of an essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see:


http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdfhttp://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf

This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting with 
recording data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it back, 
with only a few errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, making it the 
biggest best seller in history in a sense.


Quote: DNA storage is very dense. At theoretical maximum, DNA can encode 
two bits per nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . .


I'd like to confirm I have the units right here --

Present world data storage is variously estimated between 295 exabytes in 
2011 to 2,700 exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672 
(295 exabytes)


http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Qhttp://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q 
(2.7 ZB)


I don't know what source to believe.

This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a great deal of 
electricity. On NHK they estimated the number of bytes of data now exceeds 
the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. Assume it is 
2.7 ZB. That seems like a large number until you realize that you could 
record all of this data in 6 grams of DNA.


That demonstrates how much our technology may improve in the future. We 
have a lot of leeway. There is still plenty of room at the bottom as 
Feynman put it.


DNA preserves data far better than any human technology. It can also copy 
it faster and more accurately by far. I mean by many orders of magnitude.


It might be difficult to make a rapid, on-line electronic interface to DNA 
recorded data, similar to today's hard disk. But as a back up medium, or 
long-term storage, it seems promising. As Prof. Church demonstrates, this 
technology may come

RE: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

2012-12-27 Thread Jones Beene

An intriguing side issue of this ... that is, the general concept of
DNA-as-information-carrier - maybe it has been done already, and maybe we
should be looking for an encoded message which has been here for millions of
years. Actually there are themes in SciFi which have explored a similar
possibility- that there are messages awaiting us in DNA.

This does not mean require an alien visit per se. Wiki has an article on
extremophiles which is the kind of lifeform that could tolerate the cold
and vacuum of space - and possibly be carried to Earth from elsewhere -
PURPOSELY and with encoded messages in unused DNA.

Most known extremophiles are microbes - like the domain Archaea - which name
says it all.

How would you decode such DNA? Would it mathematical, verbal or more likely:
some kind of self-teaching format. Here is the start of a possibly way to
transfer with few losses - and with a lot of references to other articles:

http://www.panspermia.org/nongenseq.htm

Jones


From: Jed Rothwell 

Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into
this as part of an essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing.
Anyway, see:

http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf

This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting
with recording data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it back,
with only a few errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, making it the
biggest best seller in history in a sense.



attachment: winmail.dat

RE: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

2012-12-27 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson

Jones sez:

 An intriguing side issue of this ... that is, the general concept of
DNA-as-information-carrier
 - maybe it has been done already, and maybe we should be looking for an
encoded message
 which has been here for millions of years. Actually there are themes in
SciFi which have
 explored a similar possibility- that there are messages awaiting us in
DNA.


After considerable deliberation (plus the aid of several overheated DARPA
supercomputers) an obscure piece junk DNA code, found exclusively in the
X chromosome of the homo sapiens genome, was decoded and subsequently
translated into English as meaning the following:

Model 23A - CLEVER MONKEY with 5 digits / base 10 configuration, (no
tail): Universal Copyright patent held by the Zeta Reticuli Consortium. All
rights reserved. Revision 34.559576-42. Expiration date: 2305 AD +/- 200
years. The next planned upgrade is currently in progress. Expected
completion of download and installation: approximately 2150 AD +/- 50 years.
Latest download includes bug fixes as documented by the Official Standards
of Zeta Catch-and-Release Consortium, as lawfully monitored under the
Regulus / Tau Ceti treaty.

There remains considerable debate over the meaning of the term: download
and installation.

* * * * * * *

Talk later... The mother ship is on the other line.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks


attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into this as part
 of an essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see:

 http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf

 This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting with
 recording data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it back, with
 only a few errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, making it the
 biggest best seller in history in a sense.

 Quote: DNA storage is very dense. At theoretical maximum, DNA can encode
 two bits per nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . .

 I'd like to confirm I have the units right here --

 Present world data storage is variously estimated between 295 exabytes in
 2011 to 2,700 exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See:

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672 (295 exabytes)

 http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q (2.7
 ZB)

 I don't know what source to believe.

 This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a great deal of
 electricity. On NHK they estimated the number of bytes of data now exceeds
 the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the world. Assume it is
 2.7 ZB. That seems like a large number until you realize that you could
 record all of this data in 6 grams of DNA.

 That demonstrates how much our technology may improve in the future. We
 have a lot of leeway. There is still plenty of room at the bottom as
 Feynman put it.

 DNA preserves data far better than any human technology. It can also copy
 it faster and more accurately by far. I mean by many orders of magnitude.

 It might be difficult to make a rapid, on-line electronic interface to DNA
 recorded data, similar to today's hard disk. But as a back up medium, or
 long-term storage, it seems promising. As Prof. Church demonstrates, this
 technology may come about as a spin off from genome-reading
 technology. Perhaps there are other 3-dimensional molecular methods of data
 storage. Maybe, but I would say why bother looking for them when nature has
 already found such a robust system?

 - Jed



That would be an awesome way to transmit messages as well.  Pop a message
into a bacterial ring DNA, insert it into a pathogen free Ecoli, and infect
your agent with it.  They travel to whereever, take a blood sample, culture
the bug, and extract. A few days processing time, but still, undetectable.

Hmm Actually... That gives me a novel idea (by which i mean, an idea
for a novel.

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Jojo, how does the theory that you believe in result in the different races of 
peoples?  It seems likely that the darker complexion of those that typically 
live in areas of ample sunlight would give them an advantage due to protection 
from ultraviolet sunlight.  I have also noticed that the inhabitants of the 
more northern regions tend to have lighter skin.


The people of isolated regions develop characteristics that are different from 
the nominal such as the red haired Irish or the peoples of Iceland.  Is it you 
belief that the various genes were already present within these groups but for 
some reason did not become widespread within the overall human population?   I 
guess that this idea would be somewhat like the fact that dogs come in many 
breeds but most came from one stock which is the wolf.  Is this the way you 
understand the situation?


If you carry this to the extreme, a separate group of people that do not come 
into contact with the population at large might well become very different over 
eons.  I can imagine that as time passes they would be subject to genetic 
mutations due to radiation, etc. that is not fatal but perhaps others in the 
group  find attractive.  Maybe the selection of future mates becomes influenced 
by this new mutation and they generate more children as a result to pass the 
trait along.   Another possibility is that this new accidental change allows 
women to survive child birth better such as enlargement of the region where 
babies pass to be born.  Immunity to certain diseases would be a real life 
saver to anyone that inherits that trait.  The relatively recent introduction 
of the mutation that results in hemophilia was a reverse example of this 
process at work.  The genetic mutation that causes that unfortunate disease is 
identified and I assume random.  It seems that much depends upon the magnitude 
of the effect that the mutation causes to determine how successful it becomes 
within people at large.


I would find it very difficult to believe that an entirely new animal would 
arise instantaneously in isolation since it would most likely take at least two 
of these new critters to continue with the species.  This makes it unlikely for 
a quick change of great genetic variation to become successful.  Slow 
incremental changes that occur randomly in isolated groups might be the trick 
if allowed to operate over millions of years.  I believe that the fossil record 
tends to support this.


There are many species of birds instead of one.  That same is true for most 
animals it seems as I am often amazed at the number of kinds of snakes, 
lizards, cats,  and etc. that inhabit the earth.  How does you understanding 
apply to the many species of birds for instance?  Some are remarkably similar 
but can not interbreed.  Just by appearance alone it seems likely that each of 
these bird species are related in the distant past.  Plants offer an enormous 
example of genetic variation and people have domesticated a large number of 
them.  Take one look at the varieties of maple trees for example.  I have a 
good friend that cultivates dozens of different types for sale.  Currently all 
his maples can be fertilized by any maple, but if they were isolated for a few 
million years this might not be possible.  Oak tree species exhibit a similar 
variation but can not cross pollinate.


Back to the basic topic concept.  Data encoded within DNA sounds like a great 
starting point for long term storage technology.   We need to unravel the 
mechanisms that allow it to be accurately read and I suspect repaired when 
damaged.   I assume it will be possible to use different materials for a 
similar structure which could allow the new engineered system to withstand high 
temperature for instance.  I suspect that the rate of data storage must be 
improved by orders of magnitude before a practical solution is generated.  My 
gut feeling is that there will be better methods developed involving optics.  I 
have always felt that a technique such as perhaps 3 dimensional holograms will 
be capable of immense long term storage capability.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 27, 2012 4:21 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


The views expressed by Lomax below are typical of those who have not read 
Darwin's book or understand what Darwinian Evolution really says.

Natural Selection is not the process of DNA building, it is the macro result 
of mutations.  Mutations are the mechanism Darwin claims to be behind 
changes.  The changes result in a survival advantage, hence Natural 
Selection occurs.  Hence the process is in fact a random process.

It is important for us to understand that Natural Selection does not occur 
at the cellular or DNA level.  In other words, there is no Natural Selection 
mechanism to determine at the cellular/DNA level what random mutation

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

I like that idea as long as it is not me that is being infected!  Now, the hard 
part.  Why would this new bacteria not be wiped out by the competition within 
the guys system?  And of course you then must find your exact ones within a 
large group of others.  Also, how many different times can a guy be infected in 
this manner?


A very tiny silicon chip insert at an exact location only known to the carrier 
would work very well and be difficult to locate or even suspect by others.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 27, 2012 1:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA





On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into this as part of an 
essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see:

http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf

This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting with recording 
data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it back, with only a few 
errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, making it the biggest best seller 
in history in a sense.

Quote: DNA storage is very dense. At theoretical maximum, DNA can encode two 
bits per nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . .


I'd like to confirm I have the units right here --


Present world data storage is variously estimated between 295 exabytes in 2011 
to 2,700 exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672 (295 exabytes)


http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q (2.7 ZB)


I don't know what source to believe.


This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a great deal of electricity. On 
NHK they estimated the number of bytes of data now exceeds the number of grains 
of sand on all the beaches of the world. Assume it is 2.7 ZB. That seems like a 
large number until you realize that you could record all of this data in 6 
grams of DNA.


That demonstrates how much our technology may improve in the future. We have a 
lot of leeway. There is still plenty of room at the bottom as Feynman put it.


DNA preserves data far better than any human technology. It can also copy it 
faster and more accurately by far. I mean by many orders of magnitude.


It might be difficult to make a rapid, on-line electronic interface to DNA 
recorded data, similar to today's hard disk. But as a back up medium, or 
long-term storage, it seems promising. As Prof. Church demonstrates, this 
technology may come about as a spin off from genome-reading technology. Perhaps 
there are other 3-dimensional molecular methods of data storage. Maybe, but I 
would say why bother looking for them when nature has already found such a 
robust system?


- Jed






That would be an awesome way to transmit messages as well.  Pop a message into 
a bacterial ring DNA, insert it into a pathogen free Ecoli, and infect your 
agent with it.  They travel to whereever, take a blood sample, culture the bug, 
and extract. A few days processing time, but still, undetectable.


Hmm Actually... That gives me a novel idea (by which i mean, an idea for a 
novel.

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

2012-12-27 Thread Jed Rothwell

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:


 Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there exabytes of
 information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy of our set.
 It's far, far less than that.


The human genome is around 1.5 GB according to this source:

http://www.genetic-future.com/2008/06/how-much-data-is-human-genome-it.html

It couldn't be exabytes because it was sequenced by 2002, when
exabyte-scale storage did not exist. I doubt they stored the raw data the
sequence was derived from.

The entire genome is copied in every cell, so the total amount of
information per body is ~1.5 GB * 100 trillion cells per body. That would
be 140,000 exabytes (136 zettabytes).

Abd is correct that natural selection is not a random process. This is a
widespread misunderstanding.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

did.. anyone say that there are exabytes in our dna?  I seem to have missed
that assertion.

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:


 Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there exabytes of
 information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy of our set.
 It's far, far less than that.


 The human genome is around 1.5 GB according to this source:

 http://www.genetic-future.com/2008/06/how-much-data-is-human-genome-it.html

 It couldn't be exabytes because it was sequenced by 2002, when
 exabyte-scale storage did not exist. I doubt they stored the raw data the
 sequence was derived from.

 The entire genome is copied in every cell, so the total amount of
 information per body is ~1.5 GB * 100 trillion cells per body. That would
 be 140,000 exabytes (136 zettabytes).

 Abd is correct that natural selection is not a random process. This is a
 widespread misunderstanding.

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


At 11:31 AM 12/27/2012, Jones Beene wrote:

Actually there are themes in SciFi which have explored a similar
possibility- that there are messages awaiting us in DNA.


Aw, that's a primitive idea compared to the idea in Contact, that 
there are messages encoded in the digits of pi.


However, yes, there are messages encoded in DNA, and we are busy 
decoding them. Every moment.

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


At 04:05 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

ï»¿
Your opinion has certainly been noted by 
Bill.  Quite obviously, I'm still here cause 
Bill saw nothing that I have done to deserve banning.


Well, we don't know that. Bill sometimes pays 
little or no attention to this list for a time. I 
would expect Bill to comment either way, if he makes a decision.


[...]
PS.  I consider labels such as troll a grave 
insult.  Let that be clear to everyone lest 
Lomax will claim that it is a mild 
insult.  Being a liar justified by his religion, 
he would begin building a fallacious history of this event again.


At one time I posted some history, with links. 
I'm not likely to do that again unless requested. 
It's actually a lot of work. One of the reasons 
it's a lot of work is that it involves 
interfacing with the archive so that every 
statement is verifiable. Otherwise it is just more he-said she-said.


I actually did this on Wikipedia, for a central 
claim that was at Arbitration, and it was 
rigorously -- and completely -- supported by 
proof. The cabal still cried lies, but ... an 
Arbitrator decided to make the same compilation, 
and wrote a program to do it. And posted it. It 
showed, of course, *exactly the same as my 
evidence had previously shown.* I had *neutrally* 
compiled it. It wasn't cherry-picked. *At all*.


Until then there was a possibility I'd simply be 
banned for being disruptive, and those 
compilations of evidence were proof against me, 
i.e, walls of text. In fact, a lot had been 
done to make everything concise and precise, but, 
bottom line, to refute lies can take a *lot* of 
words, and most people won't read them.


Once the Arbitrator had confirmed my position, 
and claims, the Committee was stuck. It later 
came out that a majority really wanted to ban me, 
but it would have been way too obvious. That 
Arbitrator was a rebel, a trouble-maker. They 
eventually got rid of him, as I recall. The 
reality behind the face of Wikipedia can be quite 
ugly. I haven't said the half of it.


It's still a highly useful project, but handle with caution.


 Original Message -
From: mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.comJouni Valkonen
To: mailto:bi...@eskimo.comWilliam Beaty
Cc: mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comJed Rothwell ; 
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.comAbd ul-Rahman Lomax 
; mailto:jth...@hotmail.comJojo Jaro

Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 4:31 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


Hello,

There has been some recent discussion about 
continuous trolling by Jojo. I would highly 
recommend banning him/her. This message has not 
much else content expect insulting the original 
author indirectly and political trolling. As 
Jojo proudly admits his/her off-topic/political 
trolling and he/she is not going to end it, I would recommend banning him/her.


Thanks in advance,

Jouni


-- Forwarded message --
From: Jojo Jaro
Date: Thursday, 27 December 2012
Subject: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA
To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com


Yes, digital information is indeed present in DNA.

One has to wonder how it got there.  Natural 
Selection can not explain how random process can 
originate information; let alone exabytes of 
information present in DNA in its natural state.


But, of course, Darwinian Evolutionist are right 
because there's 2000 of them and nobody has 
heard on one of them being threatened or bribed.



Jojo


- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:32 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am 
looking into this as part of an essay about the 
history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see:


http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdfhttp://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf

This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been 
experimenting with recording data in DNA. He 
recorded his own book and then read it back, 
with only a few errors. He reproduced it 30 
million times, making it the biggest best seller in history in a sense.


Quote: DNA storage is very dense. At 
theoretical maximum, DNA can encode two bits per 
nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . .


I'd like to confirm I have the units right here --

Present world data storage is variously 
estimated between 295 exabytes in 2011 to 2,700 
exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672 
(295 exabytes)


http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Qhttp://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q 
(2.7 ZB)


I don't know what source to believe.

This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a 
great deal of electricity. On NHK they estimated 
the number of bytes of data now exceeds the 
number of grains of sand on all the beaches of 
the world. Assume it is 2.7 ZB. That seems like 
a large

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Well, Jed's story says that we can store exabytes 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.


Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: leaking pen 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 5:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  did.. anyone say that there are exabytes in our dna?  I seem to have missed 
that assertion. 


  On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:

  Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there exabytes of 
information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy of our set. It's 
far, far less than that.



The human genome is around 1.5 GB according to this source:


http://www.genetic-future.com/2008/06/how-much-data-is-human-genome-it.html


It couldn't be exabytes because it was sequenced by 2002, when 
exabyte-scale storage did not exist. I doubt they stored the raw data the 
sequence was derived from.


The entire genome is copied in every cell, so the total amount of 
information per body is ~1.5 GB * 100 trillion cells per body. That would be 
140,000 exabytes (136 zettabytes).


Abd is correct that natural selection is not a random process. This is a 
widespread misunderstanding.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

It is funny when I hear of junk DNA as described by the genetics experts.  
Why choose to call something unknown as junk instead of just admitting that it 
is not understood?  Reminds me of the old theory about the amount of one's 
brain that is being used.  I just wish people would lay out the facts that they 
know and not judge the unknowns.  I guess some would call LENR junk physics!


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 27, 2012 8:26 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


Well, Jed's story says that we can store exabytes 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.
 
 
Jojo
 
 
  
- Original Message - 
  
From:   leaking pen   
  
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 5:34   AM
  
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information   storage in DNA
  


did.. anyone say that there are exabytes in our dna?  I   seem to have missed 
that assertion. 

  
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
  

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
 




Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there   exabytes of 
information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy   of our set. 
It's far, far less than that.





The human genome is around 1.5 GB according to this source:




http://www.genetic-future.com/2008/06/how-much-data-is-human-genome-it.html




It couldn't be exabytes because it was sequenced by 2002, when 
exabyte-scale storage did not exist. I doubt they stored the raw data the 
sequence was derived from.




The entire genome is copied in every cell, so the total amount of 
information per body is ~1.5 GB * 100 trillion cells per body. That would be
 140,000 exabytes (136 zettabytes).




Abd is correct that natural selection is not a random process. This is a 
widespread misunderstanding.




- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

 survive, out DNA is full of the junk code. 
And then, sometimes, a new mutation turns some sequence into an 
active gene. And even then it may not make any significant difference.


Jojo did much better on this than he did on most of his arguments. He 
actually stayed coherent. But he's still got the nonscientist trait 
of utter certainty without adequate knowledge. That's because, I'll 
suspect, he's reasoning from conclusions. He thinks that evolution is 
contrary to the Bible.


More likely, since life *does* evolve, that's not in controversy 
among biologists, he doesn't understand the Bible.


Theoretically, the Bible could be wrong, but I won't go there, it 
would be rude and unnecessary.



Jojo


PS.  BTW, I did not start this thread lest Lomax and Jouni will 
claim that I am starting a trolling thread again.


Jojo does not normally start trolling threads, as I recall. The 
usual thing is that he jumps in with trolling. Is that happening 
here? Well, the discussion is fairly likely to go awry, but I don't 
think it has done so yet. The general topic here is science, and this 
is more on topic as a discussion of science than many of late, which 
have diverged into political and religious polemic, with highly 
provocative statements being made.


Starting a trolling thread, if that's done, is actually less 
harmful than an interjected trolling post in a non-trolling thread. 
Yes, Jojo did not start this thread, but he changed the topic to 
evolution. It was really about using DNA as a method of encoding 
large amounts of data. That change, in itself, I don't consider a big deal.


The history is below. The topic was DNA, as a literal molecule, it 
had nothing to do with evolution, as such. Jojo did not merely change 
the topic to evolution, he made it be about Darwinian 
evolutionists. That's ideological, and he brought in threats and 
bribery, all of which could make a subject other than a friendy 
dicussion. I'd not be saying this if not for Jojo's expectation that 
I'd mislead. No biggie.



- Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


Natural Selection can not explain how random process can originate 
information; let alone exabytes of information present in DNA in 
its natural state.


Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there exabytes of 
information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy of 
our set. It's far, far less than that.


But, of course, Darwinian Evolutionist are right because there's 
2000 of them and nobody has heard on one of them being threatened or bribed.


Gee, bringing in two separate contentious issues at once, like AGW 
and Evolution.


Darwinian Evolution uses the name of a person. Why? Do we care 
about persons, or do we care about principles?





Jojo


- Original Message -
From: mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.comJed Rothwell
To: mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.comvortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:32 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into this 
as part of an essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing. Anyway, see:


http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdfhttp://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf

This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting with 
recording data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it 
back, with only a few errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, 
making it the biggest best seller in history in a sense.


Quote: DNA storage is very dense. At theoretical maximum, DNA can 
encode two bits per nucleotide (nt) or 455 exabytes per gram of ssDNA . . .


I'd like to confirm I have the units right here --

Present world data storage is variously estimated between 295 
exabytes in 2011 to 2,700 exabytes today (2.7 zettabytes). See:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672 
(295 exabytes)


http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Qhttp://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23177411#.UNt2eSZGJ5Q 
(2.7 ZB)


I don't know what source to believe.

This takes a colossal number of hard disks and a great deal of 
electricity. On NHK they estimated the number of bytes of data now 
exceeds the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the 
world. Assume it is 2.7 ZB. That seems like a large number until 
you realize that you could record all of this data in 6 grams of DNA.


That demonstrates how much our technology may improve in the 
future. We have a lot of leeway. There is still plenty of room at 
the bottom as Feynman put it.


DNA preserves data far better than any human technology. It can 
also copy it faster and more accurately by far. I mean by many 
orders of magnitude.


It might be difficult to make a rapid, on-line electronic

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.)

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

David,

The different physical characteristics of individuals within a species is the 
result of microevolution.  Microevolution is different from Darwinian Evolution.

As I've posted before, Darwinian Evolution says that random mutations cause 
changes that result in some feature that confer a survival advantage resulting 
in Natural Selection.  Darwinian Evolution postulates that if you accumulate 
enough of these random changes, the individual becomes a new species. 

What a species is; we don't know other than the rough physical classifications 
we use.  If something looks different from another, it's a different species. 
 Such is the problem with Darwinian Evolution.  Before we can say whether 
Darwinian Evolution is correct; we have to ask ourselves whether it is clear 
enough to be correct.  Heck, we don't even know what a species is.  The 
process of species classification is more an art and an exercise in consensus 
building.  Before we can even say that Darwinian Evolution is correct and cram 
it down people's throats, ala AGW, we need to establish without a shadow of a 
doubt, what we mean by species.  We need to build a new Genetic 
Classification of species instead of our current physical features 
classification system.  My friends, establish the science first before you cram 
it down people's throats.

Microevolution on the other hand is in the simplest term called adaptation.  
The changes occur because of genetic expression of what is ALREADY encoded in 
the DNA.  When we turn black under the sun, that is not a random mutation of 
our DNA to give us black skin, that is an expression of what we already have.  
An organism can only change its features within the coding already in its DNA.  
Microevolution does not cause DNA changes, it causes expression of the changes 
that is dormant in the DNA.  Microevolution is evolution within a species.  It 
is extremely versatile as our DNA contains a lot of information for carrying 
out these changes.  Hopefully, in the very near future, we should finish 
encoding the DNA of all animals and we can properly classify everything 
according to their DNA.

I have told this true story before and I'll tell it again to really try to 
bring home this distinction.  A few decades back, a group of scientists 
subjected a colony of E.Coli to stresses.  One of the stresses was Streptomycin 
antibiotic.  As expected, a bunch of E.Coli died, while a few seems to have 
resistance.  These resistant cells then multiplied and they ended up with a 
colony that is now totally resistant to Streptomycin.  Aha, definite proof of 
Darwinian Evolution.  We have a new species of E.Coli.  Champagne bottles began 
popping all over.  At last, we can shut up all those crazy creationists.  
Darwinian Evolution has triumphed.

On closer inspection, Streptomycin resistance was conferred by a single gene 
expression.  The gene caused the creation of a single protein on the surface of 
the E.Coli cell that prevented Streptomycin from latching onto the cell wall to 
denature it and split it open.  A single gene conferred the survival advantage. 
 That single gene lied dormant in all E.Coli DNA and was expressed when the 
Streptomycin stress was applied.  After Streptomycin was removed, the colony 
devolved back to its original streptomycin susceptible version.  The gene 
became dormant again.  There was no permanent change of E.Coli's DNA.  Just 
expression of various genes.  This is microevolution in action.

This my friend is how we apparently have different species, when in fact, they 
are all the same species.  For instance, I have a strong suspicion that a wolf 
and a domestic dog is probably one species.  This would also explain how Noah 
seems to have been able to cram all these various species into his ark.  He did 
not have to bring a pair of poodles, a pair of collies, a pair of German 
Shepherds, etc.  He just brought in a pair of dogs, whatever it was, and that 
pair microevolved into the hundreds of canine varieties we have today.



Jojo


  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 2:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  Jojo, how does the theory that you believe in result in the different races 
of peoples?  It seems likely that the darker complexion of those that typically 
live in areas of ample sunlight would give them an advantage due to protection 
from ultraviolet sunlight.  I have also noticed that the inhabitants of the 
more northern regions tend to have lighter skin. 


  The people of isolated regions develop characteristics that are different 
from the nominal such as the red haired Irish or the peoples of Iceland.  Is it 
you belief that the various genes were already present within these groups but 
for some reason did not become widespread within the overall human population?  
 I guess that this idea would be somewhat like the fact that dogs come in many

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Amen to that, my friend.

This is the malady of conformism that is plagueing modern scienctific study.


Jojo



  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 9:38 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  It is funny when I hear of junk DNA as described by the genetics experts.  
Why choose to call something unknown as junk instead of just admitting that it 
is not understood?  Reminds me of the old theory about the amount of one's 
brain that is being used.  I just wish people would lay out the facts that they 
know and not judge the unknowns.  I guess some would call LENR junk physics! 


  Dave



  -Original Message-
  From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Thu, Dec 27, 2012 8:26 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  Well, Jed's story says that we can store exabytes 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.


  Jojo


- Original Message - 
From: leaking pen 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


did.. anyone say that there are exabytes in our dna?  I seem to have missed 
that assertion. 


On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

  Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: 

Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there exabytes of 
information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy of our set. It's 
far, far less than that.



  The human genome is around 1.5 GB according to this source:


  
http://www.genetic-future.com/2008/06/how-much-data-is-human-genome-it.html


  It couldn't be exabytes because it was sequenced by 2002, when 
exabyte-scale storage did not exist. I doubt they stored the raw data the 
sequence was derived from.


  The entire genome is copied in every cell, so the total amount of 
information per body is ~1.5 GB * 100 trillion cells per body. That would be 
140,000 exabytes (136 zettabytes).


  Abd is correct that natural selection is not a random process. This is a 
widespread misunderstanding.


  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

I agree in general with what you are saying Jojo.  It is quite apparent that 
Microevolution is occurring all the time as with your example of the ecoli 
bacteria.  This is merely the normal expression of genes that are already 
available within the population.


I assume you agree that on occasions a random mutation occurs due to some 
outside influence which leads to changes in the genetic material that is passed 
on to future generations.  One I have read about is the one I mentioned 
earlier.  If I recall correctly, the gene problem that leads to hemophilia came 
about during the middle ages, but was not present until that time.  I think the 
story is that it became prevalent with the royals in Europe and has spread from 
that point forth.  Do you suspect that it was a recessive gene that was there 
all along but not seen until close kinship marriages allowed it to show up?  
That could be what happened in that case, but it had not been expressed before 
that time as far as I know.


It seems reasonable to consider animals to belong to a species if they can mate 
to produce young that are fertile.  As you know, the numbers of chromosomes 
varies among the different animals and that pretty much eliminates the fertile 
young case.  I always think of mules when this type of situation comes up.  Of 
course there are exceptions as when a mule actually produced a colt or whatever 
it would be called on the one documented case I am aware of.  Horses and 
donkeys are very similar to begin with so it is not too surprising.


Dogs are just wolves that have been domesticated.  It is a good thing that our 
dogs behave differently than typical wolves!


Dave






-Original Message-
From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 27, 2012 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


David,
 
The different physical characteristics of individuals within a species is the 
result of microevolution.  Microevolution is different from Darwinian Evolution.
 
As I've posted before, Darwinian Evolution says that random mutations cause 
changes that result in some feature that confer a survival advantage resulting 
in Natural Selection.  Darwinian Evolution postulates that if you accumulate 
enough of these random changes, the individual becomes a new species. 
 
What a species is; we don't know other than the rough physical classifications 
we use.  If something looks different from another, it's a different species. 
 Such is the problem with Darwinian Evolution.  Before we can say whether 
Darwinian Evolution is correct; we have to ask ourselves whether it is clear 
enough to be correct.  Heck, we don't even know what a species is.  The 
process of species classification is more an art and an exercise in consensus 
building.  Before we can even say that Darwinian Evolution is correct and cram 
it down people's throats, ala AGW, we need to establish without a shadow of a 
doubt, what we mean by species.  We need to build a new Genetic 
Classification of species instead of our current physical features 
classification system.  My friends, establish the science first before you cram 
it down people's throats.
 
Microevolution on the other hand is in the simplest term called adaptation.  
The changes occur because of genetic expression of what is ALREADY encoded in 
the DNA.  When we turn black under the sun, that is not a random mutation of 
our DNA to give us black skin, that is an expression of what we already have.  
An organism can only change its features within the coding already in its DNA.  
Microevolution does not cause DNA changes, it causes expression of the changes 
that is dormant in the DNA.  Microevolution is evolution within a species.  It 
is extremely versatile as our DNA contains a lot of information for carrying 
out these changes.  Hopefully, in the very near future, we should finish 
encoding the DNA of all animals and we can properly classify everything 
according to their DNA.
 
I have told this true story before and I'll tell it again to really try to 
bring home this distinction.  A few decades back, a group of scientists 
subjected a colony of E.Coli to stresses.  One of the stresses was Streptomycin 
antibiotic.  As expected, a bunch of E.Coli died, while a few seems to have 
resistance.  These resistant cells then multiplied and they ended up with a 
colony that is now totally resistant to Streptomycin.  Aha, definite proof of 
Darwinian Evolution.  We have a new species of E.Coli.  Champagne bottles began 
popping all over.  At last, we can shut up all those crazy creationists.  
Darwinian Evolution has triumphed.
 
On closer inspection, Streptomycin resistance was conferred by a single gene 
expression.  The gene caused the creation of a single protein on the surface of 
the E.Coli cell that prevented Streptomycin from latching onto the cell wall to 
denature it and split it open.  A single gene conferred the survival advantage

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

At 08:38 PM 12/27/2012, David Roberson wrote:
It is funny when I hear of junk DNA as described by the genetics
experts. Why choose to call something unknown as junk instead of
just admitting that it is not understood? Reminds me of the old
theory about the amount of one's brain that is being used. I just
wish people would lay out the facts that they know and not judge the
unknowns. I guess some would call LENR junk physics!

Junk DNA refers to noncoding DNA. Noncoding means that the DNA is
not expressed as a protein. Noncoding DNA presumably sends no
messages, it's inactive. It may not be entirely so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA deals with the complexity of it.

When I used the term junk DNA, I was referring to what the article
calls pseudogenes.

When it's said that much or most human DNA is noncoding, the article
says 98%. Some organisms have very little noncoding DNA, as 2% for
some bacteria. Noncoding is not a synonym for unknown function,
it's very specific. The sequences are not transcribed to proteins.

Some noncoding DNA is known to have functions, I mentioned telomeres
in another post. There are sequences that aid in transcription of
neighboring sequences.

The article has:

The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODEENCODE)
projecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA#cite_note-Nature489p57-1[1]
reported in September 2012 that over 80% of DNA in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genomehuman genome serves some
purpose, biochemically
speaking.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA#cite_note-pennisi-2[2]

And here is where having some idea of how Wikipedia works can be
helfpul. This is very recent. The ENCODE project made that
announcement about three months ago and there hasn't been time for
much response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noncoding_DNAdiff=518424872oldid=514740309
is an edit by an anonymous editor that removed a comment that the
claim has been criticized. The claim was unsourced and was properly
removed, but ... what *has* been the response?

There is some decent discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noncoding_DNAoldid=517850643#Misinterpretation_of_ENCODE.3F

The issue appears to be that much of the 98% noncoding DNA is, in
fact, transcribed, into RNA, which then serves certain functions. The
project still seems to leave about 20% of the genome as
nonfunctional. As pointed out in the discussion, noncoding DNA can
sometimes be reactivated under selection pressure. That requires a
mutation, but only one, perhaps. So the noncoding DNA might be a
junkyard, and a junkyard can be very useful!

One of the key issues about pseudogenes is that, being nonfunctional,
being, sometimes,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirusEndogenous
retroviruses that were deactivated after being inserted into human
cells, having no human biological function, they are not under
selection pressure, which causes the retained mutation rate to be
much higher for these sequences, it's a raw measure of raw mutation
rates, not being selected, since mutations in those regions are
almost always neither of harm nor of benefit. And so these can be
used to study evolutionary time.

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


At 10:05 PM 12/27/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENCODEENCODE) 
projecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA#cite_note-Nature489p57-1[1] 
reported in September 2012 that over 80% of DNA in the 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genomehuman genome serves 
some purpose, biochemically 
speaking.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA#cite_note-pennisi-2[2]


I found an excellent discussion of what the ENCODE project found, on 
Scientific American:


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna

I found it expeciallly fascinating in the recognition of our 
ignorance. I recommend it.

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

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.)

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Yes, the question of random mutation occuring is not in dispute.  The dispute 
occurs when Darwinian Evolutionist extrapolate from this low probability event 
and claim that this is the mechanism for the origin of different varied forms 
of life on Earth.  Like I said, given enough time, Darwinian Evolution is 
probable.  Yet, based on our best current understanding of the Universe, there 
just ain't enough time for this to occur.  That is why Darwinian Evolutio is so 
improbable as to be laughable.

Microevolution is a different matter.  Changes due to microevolution are rapid 
since the changes instructions are already coded in the DNA.  Hence, we see 
rapid adaptation of animals to different stresses.  We see changes within an 
individual in response to stresses.  Natural Selection as envisioned by Darwin 
CAN NOT occur this rapidly.  Mutations are slow, must confer a survival 
advantage first.  Darwinian Natural Selection is an intergenerational 
mechanism,  there must be reproduction for it to happen.

I am not sure about hemophilia in royal families.  I will not state an opinion 
over something I have not investigated.  That would be the height of ignorance.

Mating and reproduction is not a necessary condition for classification into a 
species.  A modern European human will not successfully mate and reproduce with 
an African pygmy human, yet they are the same species.  Certain species of dog 
will not reproduce with other species, yet they are the same species.  There 
are dozens of examples of this.  Reproduction involves a whole host of issues, 
much more than just DNA, so I hope people do not take what I just said and 
twist it.

Yes, as I said, wolves are probably the same species as domestic dogs.  The 
behavior is different and they won't mate successfully, but that has nothing to 
do with genetics.

Jojo




  - Original Message - 
  From: David Roberson 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 10:38 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  I agree in general with what you are saying Jojo.  It is quite apparent that 
Microevolution is occurring all the time as with your example of the ecoli 
bacteria.  This is merely the normal expression of genes that are already 
available within the population. 


  I assume you agree that on occasions a random mutation occurs due to some 
outside influence which leads to changes in the genetic material that is passed 
on to future generations.  One I have read about is the one I mentioned 
earlier.  If I recall correctly, the gene problem that leads to hemophilia came 
about during the middle ages, but was not present until that time.  I think the 
story is that it became prevalent with the royals in Europe and has spread from 
that point forth.  Do you suspect that it was a recessive gene that was there 
all along but not seen until close kinship marriages allowed it to show up?  
That could be what happened in that case, but it had not been expressed before 
that time as far as I know.


  It seems reasonable to consider animals to belong to a species if they can 
mate to produce young that are fertile.  As you know, the numbers of 
chromosomes varies among the different animals and that pretty much eliminates 
the fertile young case.  I always think of mules when this type of situation 
comes up.  Of course there are exceptions as when a mule actually produced a 
colt or whatever it would be called on the one documented case I am aware of.  
Horses and donkeys are very similar to begin with so it is not too surprising.


  Dogs are just wolves that have been domesticated.  It is a good thing that 
our dogs behave differently than typical wolves!


  Dave






  -Original Message-
  From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com
  To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Thu, Dec 27, 2012 9:19 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


  David,

  The different physical characteristics of individuals within a species is the 
result of microevolution.  Microevolution is different from Darwinian Evolution.

  As I've posted before, Darwinian Evolution says that random mutations cause 
changes that result in some feature that confer a survival advantage resulting 
in Natural Selection.  Darwinian Evolution postulates that if you accumulate 
enough of these random changes, the individual becomes a new species. 

  What a species is; we don't know other than the rough physical 
classifications we use.  If something looks different from another, it's a 
different species.  Such is the problem with Darwinian Evolution.  Before we 
can say whether Darwinian Evolution is correct; we have to ask ourselves 
whether it is clear enough to be correct.  Heck, we don't even know what a 
species is.  The process of species classification is more an art and an 
exercise in consensus building.  Before we can even say that Darwinian 
Evolution is correct and cram it down people's throats, ala AGW, we need

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

I'm pretty sure you wrote a lot worth responding to, to correct it, but I 
did not read your tiresome lengthy essays.  Please learn to split you 
arguement into smaller readable segments.



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 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA



At 04:20 AM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
The views expressed by Lomax below are typical of those who have not read 
Darwin's book or understand what Darwinian Evolution really says.


I have not read Darwin's book, nor do I give a fig about Darwinian 
Evolution. I care a bit more about the mechanisms through which life was 
created on this planet, and especially how life is maintained and 
develops.


It is typicial, again, of so-called Creationists, that they posit this 
bugaboo, Darwinian Evolution, and then attempt to poke it full of holes. 
Darwin wrote a lot time ago. And science is not about individuals, and the 
progress of science is about *informed consensus.*


We are not interested in Fleischmannite Fusion. What Fleischmann thought 
about his work is *irrelevant.* He was dead wrong about certain things, 
but he was also a scientist. He admitted his errors, when he had the 
chance. That's what distinguishes scientists from ideologues.


Natural Selection is not the process of DNA building, it is the macro 
result of mutations.


Well, that's not accurate. Natural Selection is a product of the 
interaction between genetic trait and survival. Mutation creates diversity 
in genetic traits, and natural selection creates preferential survival for 
certain traits, varying with conditions.


DNA building is not relevant, actually, except as DNA is built through 
cells that replicate it, and that make copying errors.


That selection is natural is a bit of a tautology. The implication, 
though, is a distinction between selection that is somehow programmed 
toward a result, and selection that simply occurs.



Mutations are the mechanism Darwin claims to be behind changes.


No, mutations *are* changes. And, again, I don't care what Darwin claimed. 
I'm not a Darwinian.


As to the development of life, it is no longer controversial that species 
differ in genetic code, and, indeed, that we all differ from each other, 
each inheriting a specific and unique code. All humans are almost 
identical, but not quite. By change, here, Jojo must mean speciation. 
And it's obvious that species have different genetic code. What Jojo is 
claiming I suspect, is that one species never changes into another through 
mutation. However, he's not actually proposing a different mechanism for 
speciation. Perhaps he will claim that there is no speciation. The mother 
of a squirrel was always a squirrel, the mother of a hummingbird was 
always a hummingbird.


  The changes result in a survival advantage, hence Natural Selection 
occurs.  Hence the process is in fact a random process.


Mutation is not necessarily a random process. (The level of mutation is 
*controlled*, generally. Different organisms have varying degrees of 
protectin of copying accuracy.) However, let's grant that. However, what 
was said was not that mutation was not a random process, but that natural 
selection is not a random process, and the context was a claim that 
natural selection cannot originate information.


That's obviously bogus. Natural selection isn't mere mutation, which might 
be a kind of random input, but rather is the product of mutation and 
survival. The result, the genetic code as it shifts through time in a 
population, is information about something very obvious: what survived 
to reproduce, not just once, but many times.



It is important for us to understand that Natural Selection does not occur 
at the cellular or DNA level.


Oh, it does. There are many copying errors that will kill the cell, 
promptly. But perhaps Jojo means something else here.


In other words, there is no Natural Selection mechanism to determine at 
the cellular/DNA level what random mutation is to be retained.


That is generally correct, given the exception that I noted.

That mutation has to cause a change in the macro organism that would 
confer a survival advantage before Natural Selection can be invoked.


There is no trait confers survival advantage. Natural selection is a 
term for an overall process, a very gross summary of what happens, it is 
not an actual mechanism. Yes, an unexpressed change, one that has no 
effect on the macro organism, will have very little effect on survival. 
Survival is the actual mechanism that filters mutations, but the filtering 
may be quite slow. The exception I know of: there is a lot of junk DNA, 
DNA that apparently does not code for any expressed protein or messenger. 
If there was too much of that, the inefficiency would start to bog down 
the process of copying, and copying is essential to growth

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

That you can contain x exobytes in y grams. Not anything about how much
code is actually in the human body. Seems someone assumed on that.

Junk Dna contains a lot of triggers to turn on and off the protein coding
DNA. That's actually been known for, well, I learned that about 20 years
ago.  But it wasn't big news until recently. It also contains leftover
viral strands from infective virus up the line, and copies and backups of
coding dna, including in some instances previous versions that are
deprecated.  Interestingly enough, theres a common marker that seperates
out those backups, much like comment tags in computer coding. With the
protein coding dna sequences, classes as it were, and the information in
the junk to tell the body when and where to use them, the genetic code is
actually VERY similar to object oriented programming such as c ++.




On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote:

 **
 Well, Jed's story says that we can store exabytes 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.


 Jojo



 - Original Message -
 *From:* leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com
 *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
 *Sent:* Friday, December 28, 2012 5:34 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

 did.. anyone say that there are exabytes in our dna?  I seem to have
 missed that assertion.

 On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:


 Natural Selection is not Random Process. Nor are there exabytes of
 information encoded in our DNA, at least not in a single copy of our set.
 It's far, far less than that.


 The human genome is around 1.5 GB according to this source:


 http://www.genetic-future.com/2008/06/how-much-data-is-human-genome-it.html

 It couldn't be exabytes because it was sequenced by 2002, when
 exabyte-scale storage did not exist. I doubt they stored the raw data the
 sequence was derived from.

 The entire genome is copied in every cell, so the total amount of
 information per body is ~1.5 GB * 100 trillion cells per body. That would
 be 140,000 exabytes (136 zettabytes).

 Abd is correct that natural selection is not a random process. This is a
 widespread misunderstanding.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


At 09:18 PM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

David,

The different physical characteristics of individuals within a 
species is the result of microevolution.  Microevolution is 
different from Darwinian Evolution.


Sure. However, the difference is not a sharp dividing line. 
Populations diverge when isolated, and can become mutually infertile, 
the classic definition of a species.


As I've posted before, Darwinian Evolution says that random 
mutations cause changes that result in some feature that confer a 
survival advantage resulting in Natural Selection.


That's a straw man presentation. Random mutations change DNA. That 
happens. Some DNA changes are expressed as a feature, most are not. 
However, changes accumulate over time.


  Darwinian Evolution postulates that if you accumulate enough of 
these random changes, the individual becomes a new species.


No. This is not worth pursuing. Essentially, the tactic is a common 
one, present what you want to attack or debumk as X. And X is 
preposterous. But X is not what advocates of the target idea or 
philosophy or practice actually propose or believe.


There is no accumulation of random changes that suddenly becomes a 
new species. What is accumulated is a combination of random changes 
and functional changes (those few mutations that affect survival, and 
obviously, to accumulate, they must affect survival positively.) If a 
population is cofertile, the genes will keep mixing, and an 
individual becoming non-cofertile is not likely to survive. But there 
is another factor influencing the gene mixing that keeps populations 
together: isolation. Relatively isolated populations will share 
traits that will be *different* for other originally similar 
populations. Eventually these shifts accumulate until the cause a 
failure of co-fertility.


And that is normally considered a species boundary. That's not any 
organized philosophy, it's just my own understanding.




What a species is; we don't know other than the rough physical 
classifications we use.  If something looks different from 
another, it's a different species


No, the definition is usually that normal members can mate with any 
other member of the same species. At least that applies to species that mate.


  Such is the problem with Darwinian Evolution.  Before we can say 
whether Darwinian Evolution is correct; we have to ask ourselves 
whether it is clear enough to be correct.  Heck, we don't even know 
what a species is.  The process of species classification is 
more an art and an exercise in consensus building.  Before we can 
even say that Darwinian Evolution is correct and cram it down 
people's throats, ala AGW, we need to establish without a shadow of 
a doubt, what we mean by species.  We need to build a new 
Genetic Classification of species instead of our current physical 
features classification system.  My friends, establish the science 
first before you cram it down people's throats.


Microevolution on the other hand is in the simplest term called 
adaptation.  The changes occur because of genetic expression of 
what is ALREADY encoded in the DNA.  When we turn black under the 
sun, that is not a random mutation of our DNA to give us black skin, 
that is an expression of what we already have.


That is not evolution at all. It's just a respose to the enviroment. 
These responses are not inherited, the idea that they were was 
Lysenkoism, promoted by Stalin.



An organism can only change its features within the coding already in its DNA.


Organisms don't really change their features, they simply express 
what is already in their DNA. Is this agreement?


  Microevolution does not cause DNA changes, it causes expression 
of the changes that is dormant in the DNA.


That's made-up. There is no such distinction, and that can easily be 
shown. But it's not a job for me. Mutations happen, and mutations are 
not *what is already in the DNA.* But some mutations do activate 
sequences already in the DNA. That, in fact, is how compex genes can 
form out of a sequence of mutations, even if the protogene has no 
function and is not expressed. Those would be an example, one might 
imagine, of what Jojo is saying, but the changes were not dormant in 
the DNA, they happen from random mutation that hits the jackpot once 
in a while.


If you believe in some sort of conscious purpose to evolution, you 
could say that everything that happened was part of this plan, and 
what appears to be a random process is not. But random process *is* 
how it appears.

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Yes, an intriguing idea.  But isn't this what Intelligent Designers have 
been saying all along.  That our DNA contains information from an 
Intelligent Designer, whoever that Designer might be.  Remember that 
Intelligent Design as a philosophy never claims that the Intelligent 
Designer is God.


Why all the hoopla about teaching this basic concept of scientific 
curiousity?




Jojo






- Original Message - 
From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 12:31 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA



An intriguing side issue of this ... that is, the general concept of
DNA-as-information-carrier - maybe it has been done already, and maybe 
we
should be looking for an encoded message which has been here for millions 
of

years. Actually there are themes in SciFi which have explored a similar
possibility- that there are messages awaiting us in DNA.

This does not mean require an alien visit per se. Wiki has an article on
extremophiles which is the kind of lifeform that could tolerate the cold
and vacuum of space - and possibly be carried to Earth from elsewhere -
PURPOSELY and with encoded messages in unused DNA.

Most known extremophiles are microbes - like the domain Archaea - which 
name

says it all.

How would you decode such DNA? Would it mathematical, verbal or more 
likely:

some kind of self-teaching format. Here is the start of a possibly way to
transfer with few losses - and with a lot of references to other articles:

http://www.panspermia.org/nongenseq.htm

Jones


From: Jed Rothwell

Not quite as off topic as you might think. I am looking into
this as part of an essay about the history of cold fusion I am writing.
Anyway, see:

http://arep.med.harvard.edu/pdf/Church_Science_12.pdf

This prof. at Harvard, George Church, has been experimenting
with recording data in DNA. He recorded his own book and then read it 
back,

with only a few errors. He reproduced it 30 million times, making it the
biggest best seller in history in a sense.

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.)

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

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.)

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA

Read Darwin's The origin of Species first before you mouth off with these 
ignorant rantings.


This is typical of you, you claim expertise and cloud the debate with 
irrelevancy and write long boring, tiresome irrelevant essays hoping that 
people don't read it.  It's working for me sometimes, I tire of your lengthy 
hot air.



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 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA



At 09:18 PM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:

David,

The different physical characteristics of individuals within a species is 
the result of microevolution.  Microevolution is different from Darwinian 
Evolution.


Sure. However, the difference is not a sharp dividing line. Populations 
diverge when isolated, and can become mutually infertile, the classic 
definition of a species.


As I've posted before, Darwinian Evolution says that random mutations 
cause changes that result in some feature that confer a survival advantage 
resulting in Natural Selection.


That's a straw man presentation. Random mutations change DNA. That 
happens. Some DNA changes are expressed as a feature, most are not. 
However, changes accumulate over time.


  Darwinian Evolution postulates that if you accumulate enough of these 
random changes, the individual becomes a new species.


No. This is not worth pursuing. Essentially, the tactic is a common one, 
present what you want to attack or debumk as X. And X is preposterous. But 
X is not what advocates of the target idea or philosophy or practice 
actually propose or believe.


There is no accumulation of random changes that suddenly becomes a new 
species. What is accumulated is a combination of random changes and 
functional changes (those few mutations that affect survival, and 
obviously, to accumulate, they must affect survival positively.) If a 
population is cofertile, the genes will keep mixing, and an individual 
becoming non-cofertile is not likely to survive. But there is another 
factor influencing the gene mixing that keeps populations together: 
isolation. Relatively isolated populations will share traits that will be 
*different* for other originally similar populations. Eventually these 
shifts accumulate until the cause a failure of co-fertility.


And that is normally considered a species boundary. That's not any 
organized philosophy, it's just my own understanding.




What a species is; we don't know other than the rough physical 
classifications we use.  If something looks different from another, it's 
a different species


No, the definition is usually that normal members can mate with any other 
member of the same species. At least that applies to species that mate.


  Such is the problem with Darwinian Evolution.  Before we can say 
whether Darwinian Evolution is correct; we have to ask ourselves whether 
it is clear enough to be correct.  Heck, we don't even know what a 
species is.  The process of species classification is more an art and 
an exercise in consensus building.  Before we can even say that Darwinian 
Evolution is correct and cram it down people's throats, ala AGW, we need 
to establish without a shadow of a doubt, what we mean by species.  We 
need to build a new Genetic Classification of species instead of our 
current physical features classification system.  My friends, establish 
the science first before you cram it down people's throats.


Microevolution on the other hand is in the simplest term called 
adaptation.  The changes occur because of genetic expression of what is 
ALREADY encoded in the DNA.  When we turn black under the sun, that is not 
a random mutation of our DNA to give us black skin, that is an expression 
of what we already have.


That is not evolution at all. It's just a respose to the enviroment. These 
responses are not inherited, the idea that they were was Lysenkoism, 
promoted by Stalin.


An organism can only change its features within the coding already in its 
DNA.


Organisms don't really change their features, they simply express what is 
already in their DNA. Is this agreement?


  Microevolution does not cause DNA changes, it causes expression of the 
changes that is dormant in the DNA.


That's made-up. There is no such distinction, and that can easily be 
shown. But it's not a job for me. Mutations happen, and mutations are not 
*what is already in the DNA.* But some mutations do activate sequences 
already in the DNA. That, in fact, is how compex genes can form out of a 
sequence of mutations, even if the protogene has no function and is not 
expressed. Those would be an example, one might imagine, of what Jojo is 
saying, but the changes were not dormant in the DNA, they happen from 
random mutation that hits the jackpot once in a while.


If you believe in some sort of conscious purpose to evolution, you could 
say that everything that happened

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA


At 10:22 PM 12/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I'm pretty sure you wrote a lot worth responding to, to correct it, 
but I did not read your tiresome lengthy essays.  Please learn to 
split you arguement into smaller readable segments.


It is a major discourtesy to quote, in its entirety, a long post, to 
a mailing list, while only responding with tl;dr. It's discourteous 
to the entire list, and to the listserver.


I'm not interested in going to extra work to solicit Jojo's 
corrections. I'm not writing for him. I write to explore topics, 
among other benefits. Others are free to read, not read, respond, not 
respond, etc.

Re: [Vo]:Digital information storage in DNA