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

[The_DNA_Rose]

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. 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.

Well you are correct, in that DNA has become far more complicated, and in fact seems to become more complicated with every year, to say the least. However you are still wrong, as hard drives do not need to be able to read themselves. Why? because a flash drive, is a hard drive, even though it must be read by a computer, no moving parts. Solid state hard drives also work this way, the point is that DNA is a hard drive, as it is storing binary code. It is not however a hard drive invented by humans, but the hard drive that created the human inventor of DNA hard drives.

Electronic memory comes in a variety of forms to serve a variety of purposes. Flash memory is used for easy and fast information storage in computers, digital cameras and home video game consoles. It is used more like a hard drive than as RAM. In fact, flash memory is known as a solid state storage device, meaning there are no moving parts – everything is electronic instead of mechanical.

Here are a few examples of flash memory:
•Your computer’s BIOS chip
•CompactFlash (most often found in digital cameras)
•SmartMedia (most often found in digital cameras)
•Memory Stick (most often found in digital cameras)
•PCMCIA Type I and Type II memory cards (used as solid-state disks in laptops)
•Memory cards for video game consoles

Flash memory is a type of EEPROM chip, which stands for Electronically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory. It has a grid of columns and rows with a cell that has two transistors at each intersection (see image below).

The two transistors are separated from each other by a thin oxide layer. One of the transistors is known as a floating gate, and the other one is the control gate. The floating gate’s only link to the row, or wordline, is through the control gate. As long as this link is in place, the cell has a value of 1. To change the value to a 0 requires a curious process called Fowler-Nordheim tunneling.

So it is obvious that you are only thinking of a typical glass platter hard drive, with mechanical parts that fail.

 

[dmar198]

Well you are correct, in that DNA has become far more complicated, and in fact seems to become more complicated with every year, to say the least.

Thanks.

However you are still wrong, as hard drives do not need to be able to read themselves. Why? because a flash drive, is a hard drive, even though it must be read by a computer, no moving parts.

It is my understanding that flash drives have microcontrollers inside that host a read/write mechanism, and that this mechanism is essential to their function. By plugging them into the computer, you power up the microcontroller, which reads and writes on the flash memory inside the flash drive. Thus, a flash drive fits the definition of a solid state drive.

You still need a read/write mechanism in order to be a hard drive.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Thanks. It is my understanding that flash drives have microcontrollers inside that host a read/write mechanism, and that this mechanism is essential to their function. By plugging them into the computer, you power up the microcontroller, which reads and writes on the flash memory inside the flash drive. Thus, a flash drive fits the definition of a solid state drive.

You still need a read/write mechanism in order to be a hard drive.

Your argument, is not with me, but with these Harvard researchers, and these computer sites, that are ALL describing DNA as a hard drive. So please contact them, and inform them that their ideas and research are all wrong.

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

technologyreview.com/news/510246/why-dna-will-someday-replace-the-hard-drive/

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

Your inference that a new hard drive, must be like the old hard drive, is also faulty. This is like saying that a new light bulb has to have a Tungsten filament, or that a new car engine must burn a fossil fuel. Innovation changes things, sometimes radically.

 

[polytropos]

It’s at best an analogy. Sequencing the genome does not tell us quite as much as we expected, hence the current interest in epigenetics.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

It’s at best an analogy. Sequencing the genome does not tell us quite as much as we expected, hence the current interest in epigenetics.

It is not an analogy, nor does it have anything to do with any genome. It has to do with binary code, being stored on DNA, the same code that you are reading now.

This is the most radical discovery in the history of life science, because it indicates, that we are machines, running codes, written by an outside force.

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

 

[edwest2]

Here is how transcription works:

nature.com/scitable/topicpage/rna-transcription-by-rna-polymerase-prokaryotes-vs-961

Ed

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

Well, it’s not the record holder, but more on that later.

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.

I’m not sure what you are trying to communicate here.

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.

Hmmmm…I think a Sequential Access Mechanism might be a more fitting metaphor (like a tape drive) than a Random Access Mechanism (hard drive).

Do you have a link for info on this Cornell molecule? Is my math correct in that this molecule, stores 114 bytes per molecule?

I can’t find it immediately; the old link doesn’t work. May try to find it later.

DNA one needs to understand, should not even be able to store binary code, as it was designed to store chemical quad code

…I’m not sure why you are saying that. Why is it that you think something with an apparent base-4 encoding can’t be used to store something with base-2 encoding? There’s already an equation for calculating how many symbols of one encoding are needed to represent those of another. If I wanted to see how many symbols from something with base-X encoding it would take to represent something with base-Y encoding I could just take

log(X)/log(Y)

In the case of something with base-4 if I want to express it in base 2 the result of the equation is log(4)/log(2) = 2. Also binary data is frequently expressed in other bases. Base-16 (hexadecimal) is one of the most frequent. There’s also octal (base-8) and others.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Here is how transcription works:

nature.com/scitable/topicpage/rna-transcription-by-rna-polymerase-prokaryotes-vs-961

Ed

That is yesterdays transcription, DNA storing binary code, is the issue at hand. extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram

I know it’s a revolutionary change, but currently DNA is the densest storage media available, and it will last in theory for tens of thousands of years.

 

[edwest2]

We are certainly a lot more than mobile bags of chemicals.

From the back cover of Programming of Life by Dr. Don Johnson:

“Each cell of an organism has thousands of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information. Life is an intersection of physical science and information science. Both domains are critical for any life to exist, and each must be investigated using that domain’s principles. Yet most scientists have been attempting to use physical science to explain life’s information domain, a practice which has no scientific justification.”

Ed

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Well, it’s not the record holder, but more on that later.

I’m not sure what you are trying to communicate here.

Hmmmm…I think a Sequential Access Mechanism might be a more fitting metaphor (like a tape drive) than a Random Access Mechanism (hard drive).

I can’t find it immediately; the old link doesn’t work. May try to find it later.

…I’m not sure why you are saying that. Why is it that you think something with an apparent base-4 encoding can’t be used to store something with base-2 encoding? There’s already an equation for calculating how many symbols of one encoding are needed to represent those of another. If I wanted to see how many symbols from something with base-X encoding it would take to represent something with base-Y encoding I could just take

log(X)/log(Y)

In the case of something with base-4 if I want to express it in base 2 the result of the equation is log(4)/log(2) = 2. Also binary data is frequently expressed in other bases. Base-16 (hexadecimal) is one of the most frequent. There’s also octal (base-8) and others.

When you find the information, get back to me. I posted real links to real Harvard DNA drives. Your formula yielded a big nothing to me too. As for DNA hard drives, I posted this earlier and will not bother again, but your argument is with plethora of news orgs and tech sites, and with Harvard, so argue with them. As I do not do binary transcription to DNA, yet have shown that it is real. extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram

 

[polytropos]

It has to do with binary code, being stored on DNA, the same code that you are reading now.

This is the most radical discovery in the history of life science, because it indicates, that we are machines, running codes, written by an outside force.

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

DNA is not binary code. These researchers are stipulating that they will read DNA as binary and are using it to store information; it patently does not follow that DNA in the usual case (in the cells of a living being) is binary. (The obvious reason: In the usual case, thymine and guanine are not interchangeable, but they are in the application of DNA to data storage, if it is stipulated that they both be interpreted as 1s.)

I also am not reading binary right now. Binary underlies the computer’s operations, but I am no more reading binary than I am reading ink when I read someone’s handwriting.

(Then there is the other point I made, which you ignored: Even if DNA were binary, DNA is not determinative of the activity of living things. Hence epigenetics.)

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

DNA is not binary code. These researchers are stipulating that they will read DNA as binary and are using it to store information; it patently does not follow that DNA in the usual case (in the cells of a living being) is binary. (The obvious reason: In the usual case, thymine and guanine are not interchangeable, but they are in the application of DNA to data storage, if it is stipulated that they both be interpreted as 1s.)

I also am not reading binary right now. Binary underlies the computer’s operations, but I am no more reading binary than I am reading ink when I read someone’s handwriting.

(Then there is the other point I made, which you ignored: Even if DNA were binary, DNA is not determinative of the activity of living things. Hence epigenetics.)

No DNA is not binary code, I said that DNA is being used to store binary code, and it is being used this way.

You are reading decoded, binary code, at this moment, trust me, I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

The researchers are stipulating that binary code will be encoded, synthesized, sequenced and decoded in order to be read back. Here is a diagram, that simplifies the process, for the nonbeliever. extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/coding-decoding-dna-storage.jpg

And again, this is old news at this point, 2012 in fact.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ummm… Producing copies is making a backup!

Well, no, they aren’t.

Backup routines use compression algorithms to render large amounts of data or code into a form that saves storage space. Copies are, typically, exact replicas. A backup is done for a different purpose than a copy, although sometimes the two overlap - depending upon intent.

 

[cmgc]

Well you are correct, in that DNA has become far more complicated, and in fact seems to become more complicated with every year, to say the least. However you are still wrong, as hard drives do not need to be able to read themselves. Why? because a flash drive, is a hard drive, even though it must be read by a computer, no moving parts. Solid state hard drives also work this way, the point is that DNA is a hard drive, as it is storing binary code. It is not however a hard drive invented by humans, but the hard drive that created the human inventor of DNA hard drives.

Electronic memory comes in a variety of forms to serve a variety of purposes. Flash memory is used for easy and fast information storage in computers, digital cameras and home video game consoles. It is used more like a hard drive than as RAM. In fact, flash memory is known as a solid state storage device, meaning there are no moving parts – everything is electronic instead of mechanical.

Here are a few examples of flash memory:
•Your computer’s BIOS chip
•CompactFlash (most often found in digital cameras)
•SmartMedia (most often found in digital cameras)
•Memory Stick (most often found in digital cameras)
•PCMCIA Type I and Type II memory cards (used as solid-state disks in laptops)
•Memory cards for video game consoles

Flash memory is a type of EEPROM chip, which stands for Electronically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory. It has a grid of columns and rows with a cell that has two transistors at each intersection (see image below).

The two transistors are separated from each other by a thin oxide layer. One of the transistors is known as a floating gate, and the other one is the control gate. The floating gate’s only link to the row, or wordline, is through the control gate. As long as this link is in place, the cell has a value of 1. To change the value to a 0 requires a curious process called Fowler-Nordheim tunneling.

So it is obvious that you are only thinking of a typical glass platter hard drive, with mechanical parts that fail.

Sorry to be a stickler, but you can’t just copy/paste someone else’s work and insert it into your comment as if it were your own. It’s confusing at the very least. The middle 4 paragraphs are from computer.howstuffworks.com/flash-memory.htm.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Well, no, they aren’t.

Backup routines use compression algorithms to render large amounts of data or code into a form that saves storage space. Copies are, typically, exact replicas. A backup is done for a different purpose than a copy, although sometimes the two overlap - depending upon intent.

While a copy is an exact copy, a backup can be the same as a copy, as one would typically not need to compress a single page or less of information, thus you are assuming with reference to backups. I have backups, that are exact copies, as I do not trust backup software, more than I do myself, to be in control of the backup process.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Sorry to be a stickler, but you can’t just copy/paste someone else’s work and insert it into your comment as if it were your own. It’s confusing at the very least. The middle 4 paragraphs are from computer.howstuffworks.com/flash-memory.htm.

You are just being the stickler, because I am correct, that DNA is now proven to be a hard drive, which is the topic at hand, and that hard drives are the product of intelligent design, just as are the various types of data that they are designed to hold. My data is traced back to Harvard, where the DNA, encode, synthesize, and sequence process of recording binary code to DNA was first invented, by intelligent designers.

 

[tdgesq]

Except that most of the articles, including the one entitled “DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive,” go to great lengths to show how different a conventional computer hard drive is from DNA storage media:

One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos.

Different storage capacity. One gram of DNA can store 700 TB, while you need 151,000 grams (330 pounds) of hard drive to accomplish the same task.

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).

Different material and different encoding base. DNA is a nucleic acid containing four nucleobases. A hard drive uses a ferromagnetic material, while flash is floating-gate transistor. Different encoding base as noted by Sapien above.

t’s incredibly stable — where other bleeding-edge storage mediums need to be kept in sub-zero vacuums, DNA can survive for hundreds of thousands of years in a box in your garage.

Different longevity. My last conventional hard drive became corrupted after a year. So far my HDD is standing up, but I doubt for hundreds of thousands of years.

*t’s volumetric (beaker) rather than planar (hard disk) . . . … *

Different physical characteristics.

All of these articles set out to show how different DNA storage is than hard drive storage, which I think is the point that most of the posters here have been trying to make.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Except that most of the articles, including the one entitled “DNA: The Ultimate Hard Drive,” go to great lengths to show how different a conventional computer hard drive is from DNA storage media:

One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos.

Different storage capacity. One gram of DNA can store 700 TB, while you need 151,000 grams (330 pounds) of hard drive to accomplish the same task.

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).

Different material and different encoding base. DNA is a nucleic acid containing four nucleobases. A hard drive uses a ferromagnetic material, while flash is floating-gate transistor. Different encoding base as noted by Sapien above.

Different longevity. My last conventional hard drive became corrupted after a year. So far my HDD is standing up, but I doubt for hundreds of thousands of years.

Different physical characteristics.

All of these articles set out to show how different DNA storage is than hard drive storage, which I think is the point that most of the posters here have been trying to make.

This is clearly fledgling technology, and from my perspective, I could not really care if it takes off and becomes practical or not. My interest is simply, that DNA can be used to store binary code at all, and that since it has, DNA is now proven to be code storage, for something that humanity has invented, and that this makes us almost machine like. Hard drives do not grow in ponds, nor does the chemical code that DNA is made to hold, the inference here is an intelligent designer created DNA in the first place, just as intelligent designers have adapted it to binary code storage.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

When you find the information, get back to me.

Found it. my apologies, the information is in Cornell’s Library ( arxiv.org/ ) but was published by the University of Oklahoma and Kazan Physical-Technical Institue (Russia). You can find it here ( arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0202/0202035.pdf )

I posted real links to real Harvard DNA drives.

I read them. I also went back to read Church’s own words…

As for DNA hard drives, I posted this earlier and will not bother again, but your argument is with plethora of news orgs and tech sites, and with Harvard, so argue with them.

The news orgs and tech sites are writing about their understandings about what was written by Church and others. There understandings of what he said are not what he said. There are differences. The hard drive metaphor seems to have come from these other parties as Church described it as one day having the potential to be used for an archive system, not a hard drive. I won’t get into the differences in a hard drive and ROM systems.

You are just being the stickler, because I am correct, that DNA is now proven to be a hard drive, which is the topic at hand, and that hard drives are the product of intelligent design,

Ah, I see. You are trying to argue for intelligent design. I’m not concerned with intelligent design itself, but the metaphors you are using to support your argument don’t fit well.

Carry on.

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Found it. my apologies, the information is in Cornell’s Library ( arxiv.org/ ) but was published by the University of Oklahoma and Kazan Physical-Technical Institue (Russia). You can find it here ( arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0202/0202035.pdf )

I read them. I also went back to read Church’s own words…

The news orgs and tech sites are writing about their understandings about what was written by Church and others. There understandings of what he said are not what he said. There are differences. The hard drive metaphor seems to have come from these other parties as Church described it as one day having the potential to be used for an archive system, not a hard drive. I won’t get into the differences in a hard drive and ROM systems.

Ah, I see. You are trying to argue for intelligent design. I’m not concerned with intelligent design itself, but the metaphors you are using to support your argument don’t fit well.

Carry on.

So was this molecule that you spoke of, invented by Cornell, the University of Oklahoma, or the Kremlin? I am also interested in atomic quantum computing, and quantum data transmission, but that is another entirely different interest than the ones I am pursuing here.

Yes the tech of DNA storage is fledgling, and I could not really care if it becomes an everyday thing, just that it can be done at all, demonstrates that DNA can be programmed with code, after it was created, by a creator.

You want to know what is really strange about DNA storage, these articles are from 2012, and no one seems to know anything about this, people are attacking me for even saying that it is real. Now we know that our bodies can store typical computer code, which in some way, likens us to chemical computers, of some intelligent origin.

As for the hard drive comparison, it is accurate, as a hard drive stores information, there is no possible logical reason for a hard drive built billions of years in the past, by a clearly superior intelligence, to look or act, anything like the ones that we have now, but that they both store the same things, is just magnificent. A dam, a wind turbine, a diesel generator, a nuclear reactor, and a bicycle powered generator all produce electricity, yet none look or function like the others, as such all hard drives store information, yet not need be alike