The DNA in your body is proven to be a hard drive

[The_DNA_Rose]

Does this make you a computer of sorts? Seriously, DNA is now the record holder for the most compact and efficient way to store the typical binary code that this network is running on. So is the helix the drive and the proteins the code of life?
Most people have no knowledge of this, but it appears that this network could one day store all of it’s information on a single gram of DNA, with enough room for all of the books in the library of congress times two…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Does this make you a computer of sorts? Seriously, DNA is now the record holder for the most compact and efficient way to store the typical binary code that this network is running on. So is the helix the drive and the proteins the code of life?
Most people have no knowledge of this, but it appears that this network could one day store all of it’s information on a single gram of DNA, with enough room for all of the books in the library of congress times two…

And all these millions of years without a backup but near infinite production of copies where the surviving new images persistently brought about improved functionality. Defies the imagination.

 

[dmar198]

The DNA in your body is proven to be a hard drive

I googled “define hard drive” and I got this definition: “a high-capacity, self-contained storage device containing a read-write mechanism plus one or more hard disks, inside a sealed unit.”

If that definition is accurate, the DNA in your body is not a hard drive, because it doesn’t contain any hard disks nor a read-write mechanism.

Does this make you a computer of sorts?

No, for two reasons: our DNA is not a hard drive, and you need more than a hard drive to be a computer. Also: a human is even farther from Google’s definition of a computer than DNA is from Google’s definition of a hard drive.

Seriously, DNA is now the record holder for the most compact and efficient way to store the typical binary code that this network is running on.

That’s probably accurate.

So is the helix the drive and the proteins the code of life?

I think you may be starting to see why DNA is not a hard drive. The helix doesn’t drive the activity of the DNA, it is its shape. The proteins aren’t the code, the nucleobases are.

Most people have no knowledge of this, but it appears that this network could one day store all of it’s information on a single gram of DNA, with enough room for all of the books in the library of congress times two…

That seems reasonably accurate.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

I googled “define hard drive” and I got this definition: “a high-capacity, self-contained storage device containing a read-write mechanism plus one or more hard disks, inside a sealed unit.”

If that definition is accurate, the DNA in your body is not a hard drive, because it doesn’t contain any hard disks nor a read-write mechanism. No, for two reasons: our DNA is not a hard drive, and you need more than a hard drive to be a computer. Also: a human is even farther from Google’s definition of a computer than DNA is from Google’s definition of a hard drive. That’s probably accurate. I think you may be starting to see why DNA is not a hard drive. The helix doesn’t drive the activity of the DNA, it is its shape. The proteins aren’t the code, the nucleobases are. That seems reasonably accurate.

You are 100 percent wrong, as researchers from Harvard have invented a way to store binary code on DNA. I purposely left this out, so that you would present the argument that you have. So for your argument, I thank you.

Now the facts of DNA based binary code storage.

extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram

news.sciencemag.org/math/2012/08/dna-ultimate-hard-drive

A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.

The work, carried out by George Church and Sri Kosuri, basically treats DNA as just another digital storage device. Instead of binary data being encoded as magnetic regions on a hard drive platter, strands of DNA that store 96 bits are synthesized, with each of the bases (TGAC) representing a binary value (T and G = 1, A and C = 0).

To read the data stored in DNA, you simply sequence it — just as if you were sequencing the human genome — and convert each of the TGAC bases back into binary. To aid with sequencing, each strand of DNA has a 19-bit address block at the start (the red bits in the image below) — so a whole vat of DNA can be sequenced out of order, and then sorted into usable data using the addresses.

So read and weep, DNA is now proven to be a digital storage devise. Argue this all you want, your argument is now with science, and not with religion…

Seems your Google search, was not as intelligent as was mine.

 

[dmar198]

You are 100 percent wrong, as researchers from Harvard have invented a way to store binary code on DNA.

I think I must be misunderstanding you, because the article you quoted doesn’t seem to support your point. How are you defining a hard drive? If by “hard drive” you mean “anything that can store digital information,” then first I think that’s a false definition, but second, if you use that definition then not only DNA but also any rock you pick up off the ground is a hard drive too, because you can carve binary code into it. Even the article you quoted says the DNA is not a hard drive:

Instead of binary data being encoded as magnetic regions on a hard drive platter, strands of DNA that store 96 bits are synthesized…

I think that sentence highlights the contrast between a hard drive and this new DNA storage method. What do you think?

So read and weep, DNA is now proven to be a digital storage devise.

That’s not the same as a hard drive. Even a rock can store digital information if you carve it into the rock. A hard drive has hard disks inside and a read/write mechanism. DNA doesn’t.

Argue this all you want, your argument is now with science, and not with religion.

I don’t think we are disagreeing except about the definition of the phrase “hard drive.” Therefore, I don’t think I am arguing with science, just your definition of the phrase “hard drive.”

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

I think I must be misunderstanding you, because the article you quoted doesn’t seem to support your point. How are you defining a hard drive? If by “hard drive” you mean “anything that can store digital information,” then not only DNA but a rock is a hard drive too, because you can carve binary code into it. Even the article you quoted says the DNA is not a hard drive: That’s not the same as a hard drive. Even a rock can store digital information if you carve it into the rock. A hard drive has hard disks inside and a read/write mechanism. DNA doesn’t. I don’t think we are disagreeing except about the definition of the word “hard drive.” Therefore, I don’t think I am arguing with science, just your definition of the word “hard drive.”

You can not carve binary code into rock, and have the most efficient, in terms of storage capacity per milligram storage medium known to humanity, this is reserved for DNA alone. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA, a picogram is, one trillionth of a gram—an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data.

So how much data can you carve into a trillionth of a gram of rock?

The answer son, is nothing, you are thus living in the stone age.

Let us know when you wake up and end your denial of science.

Try again, please, this is fun.

 

[DrTaffy]

And all these millions of years without a backup but near infinite production of copies

Ummm… Producing copies is making a backup!

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Ummm… Producing copies is making a backup!

Technically every cell in your body, contains a backup of the entire organism, even though only a minute fraction of this info is needed to do the work of that cell. Furthermore, there are currently 7 billion backups of the genetic information needed to make a human, half that number if a copy of each sex is needed.

Try again, as backups are on every continent, and in space as well.

Next.

 

[dmar198]

You can not carve binary code into rock, and have the most efficient, in terms of storage capacity per milligram storage medium known to humanity

That’s true. You can still store it there though, and I think that’s enough to show that being a hard drive is about more than just being able to store data. A hard drive also has magnetic disks and a read/write mechanism, unless you are using a different definition. Therefore I ask: what is your definition of a hard drive, and how does it not include a rock?

Let us know when you wake up and end your denial of science.

I’m not denying science, I’m the one defining words the way the scientific community accepts. You aren’t giving any definition of the words, and you are quoting articles that don’t say the DNA is a hard drive, but instead that contrast the DNA with a hard drive. Please answer this question: how do you define a hard drive, and how does your definition not include a rock with info carved into it?

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

That’s true. You can still store it there though, and I think that’s enough to show that being a hard drive is about more than just being able to store data. A hard drive also has magnetic disks and a read/write mechanism, unless you are using a different definition. Therefore I ask: what is your definition of a hard drive, and how does it not include a rock? I’m not, I’m the one defining words the way the scientific community accepts. You aren’t giving any definition of the words, and you are quoting articles that don’t say the DNA is a hard drive, but instead that contrast the DNA with a hard drive. Please answer this question: how do you define a hard drive, and how does your definition not include a rock with info carved into it?

Wrong, sure you can carve info into rock, but this info needs to be readable, and the amount of rock needed for your theory, does not exist on any flat plane on the Earth. Furthermore a system to read this info in a microsecond, would be as large as the Earth, not very efficient.

In short, it’s a dumb analogy.

But you obviously can incorporate mountains of flat rock storing binary code into the size of a single cell?

Wake up, not to be rude, but you are just not making sense.

 

[M-Dent]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

news.sciencemag.org/math/2012/08/dna-ultimate-hard-drive

Yes, this is true…

Next.

 

[dmar198]

Wrong, sure you can carve info into rock, but this info needs to be readable, and the amount of rock needed for your theory, does not exist on any flat plane on the Earth.

The amount needed to do what? If all you are trying to do is store and read back digital information, the digit 3 or a sequence of digits representing a QR code can be stored in a rock by carving them in it, and it is quite readable. You could do that with a small rock.

No, you couldn’t carve the amount of info you can store in DNA. I agree with that.

I’m just trying to say that your definition of a hard drive, which seems to be “anything that can store digital information,” is incomplete because it includes small rocks. The word “drive” in “hard drive” refers to a gadget that spins a magnetic disc inside. Without that disc, you have no drive, and without a drive, you have no hard drive.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

The amount needed to do what? If all you are trying to do is store and read back digital information, the digit 3 or a sequence of digits representing a QR code can be stored in a rock by carving them in it, and it is quite readable. You could do that with a small rock.

No, you couldn’t carve the amount of info you can store in DNA. I agree with that.

I’m just trying to say that your definition of a hard drive, which seems to be “anything that can store digital information,” is incomplete because it includes small rocks. The word “drive” in “hard drive” refers to a gadget that spins a magnetic disc inside. Without that disc, you have no drive, and without a drive, you have no hard drive.

Wrong, but you can design a rock hard drive, that can be used to operate a computer, are you claiming this.

Dude one pictogram, of DNA, (one trillionth of a gram) can store a book, coded into binary, if using the DNA hard drive encoding method.

[deleted] you persist that you can make a computer with a rock hard drive, by carving 0/1’s on the stone. You would need a bigger planet, and no human would ever read your nonsense, because they would have to travel across the globe to read your carvings, and the carvings would make no sense. In fact it would be easier to just carve letters into the stone, as the binary information is only recorded for computer retrieval, and your computer would need to be the size of a continent, at least.

[deleted]

 

[dmar198]

Wrong, but you can design a rock hard drive, that can be used to operate a computer, are you claiming this.

I’m not claiming that, because I don’t think a rock is a hard drive. It has no magnetic disk nor a read/write mechanism, neither does DNA. But both DNA and a rock can store data, if you work at it. Storing data is not the same as being a hard drive. A hard drive has a read/write mechanism and magnetic disks. Neither DNA nor rocks have that.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

I’m not claiming that, because I don’t think a rock is a hard drive. It has no magnetic disk nor a read/write mechanism, neither does DNA. But both DNA and a rock can store data, if you work at it. Storing data is not the same as being a hard drive. A hard drive has a read/write mechanism and magnetic disks. Neither DNA nor rocks have that.

Dude, if DNA has no read mechanism, how is the code read, to form an individual? All codes are readable, or they are not codes.

You are not making the littlest bit of sense…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Wrong, sure you can carve info into rock, but this info needs to be readable, and the amount of rock needed for your theory, does not exist on any flat plane on the Earth. Furthermore a system to read this info in a microsecond, would be as large as the Earth, not very efficient.

He was showing that a rock could be used to store information (it can). It seems the rest of your critique of the analogy looks at the capacity, information density, and potential performance of using rocks as a storage mechanisms. But that’ doesn’t invalidate the analogy.

If you are looking for something with high information density Cornell University has a publication on storing information using a molecule (C18 H 19 N) that can store 3 bytes per atom. That’s higher than the density of DNA.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

He was showing that a rock could be used to store information (it can). It seems the rest of your critique of the analogy looks at the capacity, information density, and potential performance of using rocks as a storage mechanisms. But that’ doesn’t invalidate the analogy.

If you are looking for something with high information density Cornell University has a publication on storing information using a molecule (C18 H 19 N) that can store 3 bytes per atom. That’s higher than the density of DNA.

Perhaps, and if this 3 bytes per atom hard drive, is perfected to where it is usable, then DNA is no longer the record holder for information storage density. However the DNA drive is here now, and it is real and not theory. My interest in this is actually not from the computer end, but from the what is DNA and life side of the equation. The cool thing that I see with DNA is that if it can function as a hard drive for binary code, then it might be nothing more than a hard drive for the superior and not understood coding of DNA. Which makes us machines carrying 37 trillion little hard drives.

Do you have a link for info on this Cornell molecule? Is my math correct in that this molecule, stores 114 bytes per molecule? DNA one needs to understand, should not even be able to store binary code, as it was designed to store chemical quad code, one thing needed to also be demonstrated by Cornell, is not the density of information, but the quality of storage, noting that DNA easily survives tens of thousands of years, as a certain mammoth is demonstrating clearly.

Thanks for an insight if intelligence…!

 

[edwest2]

And all these millions of years without a backup but near infinite production of copies where the surviving new images persistently brought about improved functionality. Defies the imagination.

Yes, it does.

Ed

 

[dmar198]

Dude, if DNA has no read mechanism, how is the code read, to form an individual?

The DNA does not have a mechanism for reading itself, it relies on external biological systems, such as ribosomes, to do that. A hard drive is different because it has an integrated gadget for reading its own disc and writing on it. DNA doesn’t have that, so it’s not a hard drive.

You could argue that a cell is a hard drive, because it has a read/write mechanism and it stores information in DNA. It does not have magnetic discs, so it doesn’t quite fit Google’s definition of a hard drive, but solid state drives don’t have magnetic discs, and they are sometimes called hard drives. So you could legitimately make a case for cells being hard drives, but not DNA by itself.

All codes are readable, or they are not codes.

It’s code is readable, but DNA has no way to read itself. That’s one of the things that distinguishes it from a hard drive. A hard drive has an integrated reader.