This opens a lot of possibilities for genetic manipulation, especially in connection with CRISPR. I imagine the X and Y bases are being kept secret for proprietary reason
New organisms have been formed using the first ever 6-letter genetic code
141–150 of 152 posts
Re: New organisms have been formed using the first ever 6-letter genetic code
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, virtually is the important bit. In code we can know all the details. So, you can predict the code just fine. For example running it twice and getting the same output the second time. Chaos theory is based on real world systems that can't be measured accurately. However, internal computer simulations don't have that limitation. One example is if you try saving a simulation to disk you need to copy all internal sta…
No, the parent is actually talking about the Halting Problem. It has been proven impossible to predict when a program will exit without actually executing the program. (except in a few trivial edge cases) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
Minor detail, but the undecidability Halting Problem strictly requires an infinite tape (infinite storage space).
In "practice", if you could call it such, a computer with limited memory becomes a "linear bounded automaton" and the Halting Problem is decidable; cf. http://cs.stackexchange.com/q/22925
Of course, big enough memory can mean that it can be impossible to detect termination before the heat death of the universe - we are talking theory here.
Re: New organisms have been formed using the first ever 6-letter genetic code
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, virtually is the important bit. In code we can know all the details. So, you can predict the code just fine. For example running it twice and getting the same output the second time. Chaos theory is based on real world systems that can't be measured accurately. However, internal computer simulations don't have that limitation. One example is if you try saving a simulation to disk you need to copy all internal sta…
What about the following? x=5 y=5 while True: if y%2 == 0: y=y/2 else: y=3y+1 if y == 1: x=x+1 y=x if y==x: return x Please predict the code. I'll even give you $500 in memory of some guy named Erdos if you get it right (and I haven't even gone for a provably undecidable example! :) ) PS: Don't waste time checking x values less than 1000000000000000000
In theory this will eventually overflow even with pythons Arbitrary precision due to the machines finite memory. Though for practical cases it's going to run until the machine encounters an error.
If your asking the underlying math problem, yes that is true for all positive integers. It's much more obvious in base 3.
Re: New organisms have been formed using the first ever 6-letter genetic code
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, virtually is the important bit. In code we can know all the details. So, you can predict the code just fine. For example running it twice and getting the same output the second time. Chaos theory is based on real world systems that can't be measured accurately. However, internal computer simulations don't have that limitation. One example is if you try saving a simulation to disk you need to copy all internal sta…
No, I don't think you quite get it. What OP meant, in more rigorous terms, is: write me a function that takes "b" as an argument and returns whether the function will terminate or not when I replace 3.59 with "b". As it turns out, this is not at all simple. But you don't even need to go there. For some values of "b", the program doesn't terminate, and it's not trivial to show it. What are you going to do? Run the pro…
Machine has finite precision, as soon as it repeats a previous state it's in an infinite loop. And no you don't need to run this on an arbitrarily large computer, two computers running at different speeds where you compare state after each step also works.
PS: The halting problem is only undecidable when running with unlimited memory.
Re: New organisms have been formed using the first ever 6-letter genetic code
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was very young I spoke with a man who informed me in no uncertain terms that the digital age was old news and the next big thing would be bio-entertainment.
I'm not sure if that refers to highly customized psychoactive drugs... or prostitution.
He elaborated a little: my understanding (at the time) was basically "Pokémon in real life".
Re: New organisms have been formed using the first ever 6-letter genetic code
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
I fully agree, which is why I added the /s(arcasm) tag at the end. Not sure if that is commonly understood here on HN. I was just saying that frequently comments that imply even the slightest criticism about GMOs get attacked as anti-science, which is absurd.
I hope, though, that you understand that this is basically a reaction to GMOs being assumed inherently dangerous and evil by the general population, by the virtue of not being "natural" enough.
I don't. I've given what I've thought to be well balanced and scientifically backed statements about GMOs being safe because of the all the testing, and have even used the same terminology that you have, saying they are neither inherently safe or unsafe, and have been viciously attacked by pro-GMO supporters for not blindly saying they are inherently safe. And in almost all cases the background of the posters that attacked me either worked in the industry or a mod of /r/GMOMyths/ or the like. The funny thing is that anywhere I post, they come out of the woodwork, as if they have bots that are constantly scanning various forums for keywords.
It's not merely an attack of people with stupid uninformed opinions. It's a tobacco industry style propaganda campaign that attacks anyone that is not 100% patriotically behind GMOs.
Re: New organisms have been formed using the first ever 6-letter genetic code
#147> "The other reason we don't need to be freaking out, says Romesberg, is that these molecules have not been designed to work at all in complex organisms, and seeing as they're like nothing found in nature, there's little chance that this could get wildly out of hand." This is how the plot of every horror/disaster movie starts.
That is what leapt to my mind as well.
Its entirely possible that there were other self-replicating molecules on Earth that evolved first, but DNA simply out-competed them to extinction.
If we ever produce a competitor to DNA that was more 'virulent' than DNA, it would similarly out-compete DNA.
It would be the most pandemic of plagues that would affect every form of life. Even if we could protect our own DNA against attack somehow, it would attack all the bacteria that is symbiotic with us and which we need to survive.
Re: New organisms have been formed using the first ever 6-letter genetic code
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because embedding new species into an untested environment can be devastating. My example is the accidental import of tree snakes to Guam, which resulted in the complete extinction of all birds on the island, because the snakes ate the eggs faster than the birds could adapt. There are numerous numerous other examples of accidental release of animals destroying ecosystems.
There's nothing with GMOs that make them inherently more dangerous in the sense you're discussing, though.
That you know of. Have you vetted these GMOs against all possibilities of people's DNA? Perhaps unreasonable. How about testing against people who are considered "unhealthy" by the trial criteria? Nope, science knows nothing about how GMOs affect those people, yet claims they are safe.
Re: New organisms have been formed using the first ever 6-letter genetic code
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure if that refers to highly customized psychoactive drugs... or prostitution.
He elaborated a little: my understanding (at the time) was basically "Pokémon in real life".
I was thinking Pokemon myself, but the whole fighting aspect would probably be illegal like dog fighting or cock fighting.
Re: New organisms have been formed using the first ever 6-letter genetic code
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing with GMOs that make them inherently more dangerous in the sense you're discussing, though.
That you know of. Have you vetted these GMOs against all possibilities of people's DNA? Perhaps unreasonable. How about testing against people who are considered "unhealthy" by the trial criteria? Nope, science knows nothing about how GMOs affect those people, yet claims they are safe.
Those things would depend on the organism itself, not whether or not it has been "artificially" genetically modified.