#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, Kernan, you wrote: K> Found interesting article about genetics, can interesting to whom will. It is told about DNA in a context of analogies to programming. K> with a gene of the person occupies approximately 3 gigabytes, which can be reduced about 750 megabytes if to discard a peel. That is, by a gene it is disassembled it is researched on so many that it is precisely known that there is "peel"? Already there are artificially assembled people copies without "peel" nothing distinguishable from us?

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

For the general development also I recommend to watch this film. In my opinion, it is very well told about synthesis of fibers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XWHBb7Q0GE

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, Kernan, you wrote: K> DNA DNA Language is numeral, but not binary. The binary code uses 0 and 1 (therefore it and name binary), DNA uses 4 values: T, a C, G and A. K> While the binary byte consists in the core of 8 binary figures, I very much would like to learn - if the binary byte consists of 8 binary figures only in the core of what it still consists?> DNA - "byte" (named ) contains 3 characters. And as each character can have one of four values,  DNA has 64 possible values, in difference from 256 values of binary byte. Well, means, on 4  on byte. Bytes it is more!

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, Pavel Dvorkin! K>> While the binary byte consists in the core of 8 binary figures PD> To me very much it would be desirable to learn - if the binary byte consists of 8 binary figures only in the core of what it still consists? Not "(in the core) (from 8 binary figures)", and "(in the core from 8) (binary figures)". "byte-sizes from 1 to 48 bits are known to have been used in the past" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte>> DNA - "byte" (named ) contains 3 characters. And as each character can have one of four values,  DNA has 64 possible values, in difference from 256 values of binary byte. PD> well, means, on 4  on byte. Bytes it is more! 1  = 4^3/3 a symbol / = 2 ^ (2*3) = 2^6 2  = 4 ^ (3+3)/6 symbols / = 2 ^ (2*6) = 2^12 3... = 2^18 4... = 2^24 = 2 ^ (3*8 4  = 3 bytes.

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Gene it is terrible . Old as a shit of a mammoth. It was written by millions people a method  editings in flow of billions years. Any refactoring for all this time. Sometimes viruses spoiled source codes that there then so these editings and were saved (jumping genes).

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, SuhanovSergey, you wrote: SS> the Gene it is terrible . Old as a shit of a mammoth. It was written by millions people a method  editings in flow of billions years. Any refactoring for all this time. Sometimes viruses spoiled source codes that there then so these editings and were saved (jumping genes). Here, by the way, whether it is interesting, possible  the code,   and out-of-date features? Whether it leads to problems in evolution further, for example, to increase  cells to .

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, SergeCpp, you wrote: SC> 4  = 3 bytes. Directly base64...

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: SK> That is, by a gene it is disassembled it is researched on so many that it is precisely known that there is "peel"? There are "silent" sections. The most important genes are presented in tens copies. Well also it is not forgotten about congestion : the same fragment of DNA can enter into different genes. Both with shift, and without. SK> Already there are artificially assembled people copies without "peel" nothing distinguishable from us? To begin with it is necessary to define that such "peel".

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, Kernan, you wrote: K> Here, by the way, whether it is interesting, possible  the code,   and out-of-date features? Whether it leads to problems in evolution further, for example, to increase  cells to . A gene it is faster not the program, it is the catalyst organized, as the stejt-car. And its evolution corrects, as a matter of fact, adding patches, on patches. Does not add new functions, and reduces significance of bugs.

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, Nik, you wrote: N> the Gene it is faster not the program, it is the catalyst organized, as the stejt-car. And its evolution corrects, as a matter of fact, adding patches, on patches. Does not add new functions, and reduces significance of bugs. The catalyst - RNK-polimeraza. A gene - the pure code. And here be read it can differently. (The Code of ribosomes differs from cellular). And as though by a gene it was not patched - always there are errors. They there is the new fiber, a new sign. And further selection defines there will be it evolution or lockup.

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, biochemist, you wrote: SK>> That is, by a gene it is disassembled it is researched on so many that it is precisely known that there is "peel"? B> There are "silent" sections. It, the Lord god personally told to researchers? Here to what leads up scientists uncontrolled access to drugs. B> the most important genes are presented in tens copies. And ? And how it is installed that here this gene important, this minor, and this "peel"? It is unambiguously installed? And how it is installed that enough one copy? It is unambiguously installed? B> well also it is not forgotten about congestion : the same fragment of DNA can enter into different genes. Both with shift, and without. And ? It is installed precisely, where exactly and a certain fragment, and other fragments should enter into what gene "peel"? It is unambiguously installed? SK>> already there are artificially assembled people copies without "peel" nothing distinguishable from us? B> to begin with it is necessary to define that such "peel". But, after all, I also asked it, though it is a little in other words.

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, biochemist, you wrote: B> And as though by a gene it was not patched - always there are errors. ! What errors? Who solved that it is errors? By what criteria? Skin color not that? The form of the arch of a skull not Aryan enough turns out? Or all is easier and at scientists uncontrollable access to substances access to the original documentation notarially assured by the Lord by god?

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: B>> There are "silent" sections. SK> it, the Lord god personally told to researchers? Here to what leads up scientists uncontrolled access to drugs. On  - not transcribed sections. It can be  or another  an element. And there are simply enough big fragments which transcription does not happen. SK> and ? SK> And how it is installed that here this gene important, this minor, and this "peel"? It is unambiguously installed? And how it is installed that enough one copy? It is unambiguously installed? A central way of a metabolism - . All enzymes participating in this process are encoded in a plural amount. And here LAC , responsible synthesis of fibers processing lactose - in one copy. SK> and ? It is installed precisely, where exactly and a certain fragment, and other fragments should enter into what gene "peel"? It is unambiguously installed? You probably wanted to tell "a fragment in a gene". But I with you agree - copying and service  too  what to support "peel". Simply, value of some sections is not known.

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: SK> Opjatdvadtsatpjat! SK> What errors? Who solved that it is errors? By what criteria? Skin color not that? The form of the arch of a skull not Aryan enough turns out? Or all is easier and at scientists uncontrollable access to substances access to the original documentation notarially assured by the Lord by god? For example: at file copying here and there sometimes there is a changeover 0 on 1 or 1 on 0. For catching and correction such invented check on parity, checksums... But check on parity does not help if there was a failure in 2 bits. We have an error. And here: all processes (replication, a transcription, translation, a reparation) go with errors. Instead of necessary  or amino acids another turnes on. It is not enough errors, but it gives a material for selection.

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, biochemist, you wrote: SK>> What errors? Who solved that it is errors? By what criteria? Skin color not that? The form of the arch of a skull not Aryan enough turns out? Or all is easier and at scientists uncontrollable access to substances access to the original documentation notarially assured by the Lord by god? B> for example: at file copying here and there sometimes there is a changeover 0 on 1 or 1 on 0. For catching and correction such invented check on parity, checksums... But check on parity does not help if there was a failure in 2 bits. We have an error. And here: all processes (replication, a transcription, translation, a reparation) go with errors. Instead of necessary  or amino acids another turnes on. It is not enough errors, but it gives a material for selection. I correctly understand that you understand a certain deviation as an error from a certain standard? I will ask differently - who to you told that this change is an error what is the bad mutation what is an unsuccessful branch of an evolutionary tree? Can be on the contrary, it is unique true and necessary for a survival? There can be this change does not give notable result in this generation, but in a combination to three subsequent mutations (impossible however without this preliminary "error") gives to the person (through three generations accordingly) possibility (hypothetically immediately  in a gravitational field by force of thought, unaided techniques. Or only so "pushed the button and there and then received result"?

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: SK> with the Gene of the person occupies approximately 3 gigabytes, which can be reduced about 750 megabytes if to discard a peel. SK> that is, by a gene it is disassembled it is researched on so many that it is precisely known that there is "peel"? There meant that there are enough 2 bits on basis instead of 8. I.e. in 4 times it is possible to compress if simply to pack bits. And from order of 50 mbytes all it only have significance. Remaining - garbage.

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: SK> I correctly understand that you understand a certain deviation as an error from a certain standard? I correctly understand, what at copying files you do not consider changeover of some bytes as an error? SK> I will ask differently - who to you told that this change is an error what is the bad mutation what is an unsuccessful branch of an evolutionary tree? Again 25! Again I speak - gives a material for selection. SK> can be on the contrary, it is unique true and necessary for a survival? If existed unique - there would be no such variety of types. SK> there can be this change does not give notable result in this generation, but in a combination to three subsequent mutations (impossible however without this preliminary "error") gives to the person (through three generations accordingly) possibility (hypothetically immediately  in a gravitational field by force of thought, unaided techniques. Through generations is instantly. We take corn. It appeared from the wild-growing ancestor of all for 100 years. (6 mutations). It is the base for a heap  theories - aliens, the higher reason, the developed nowadays decayed civilization... SK> Or only so "pushed the button and there and then received result"? Has no value, the mutation gives priority to an organism (more truly - individuals). Important - how much it will be fixed in population.

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, biochemist, you wrote: SK>> I correctly understand that you understand a certain deviation as an error from a certain standard? B> I correctly understand, what at copying files you do not consider changeover of some bytes as an error? At comparing with the original source file, the standard? And already there is a standard  the person? B> if existed unique - there would be no such variety of types. Then whence criteria of "errors"? SK>> there Can be this change does not give notable result in this generation, but in a combination to three subsequent mutations (impossible however without this preliminary "error") gives to the person (through three generations accordingly) possibility (hypothetically immediately  in a gravitational field by force of thought, unaided techniques. B> through generations is instantly. B> we Take corn. It appeared from the wild-growing ancestor of all for 100 years. (6 mutations). It is the base for a heap  theories - aliens, the higher reason, the developed nowadays decayed civilization... Corn  - 6 mutations in lower limit can transit for 6 years. Than genetics 94 years were engaged as early as?  buckets supped? SK>> or only so "pushed the button and there and then received result"? B> has no value, the mutation gives priority to an organism (more truly - individuals). Important - how much it will be fixed in population. Well, let 0.7 % of population will possess ability to a levitation. It on former "error"? "Peel"?

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, SuhanovSergey, you wrote: SS> the Gene it is terrible . Old as a shit of a mammoth. It was written by millions people a method  editings in flow of billions years. Any refactoring for all this time. Sometimes viruses spoiled source codes that there then so these editings and were saved (jumping genes). And nevertheless it works, and  it is reliable. I doubt that though any  the code withstands at least one million years of the active finishing. Though with refactoring, though with any other terrible words.

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

here business is much deeper... Essentially all not so! Errors or CASUAL mutations cannot reduce entropy! Try by errors from Evgenie Onegina to give birth to War and peace. I.e. intermittent errors cannot cause evolution, entropy reduction. Or   instead of casual or the evolution reason it is hidden in other place, in uniqueness of the Earth and generally in a peace arrangement or somehow so.

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, loginx, you wrote: L> I.e. intermittent errors cannot cause evolution, entropy reduction. My question was not about evolution as that, and about the used scientific term "peel".

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, the Laid-back person, you wrote: SS>> the Gene it is terrible . Old as a shit of a mammoth. It was written by millions people a method  editings in flow of billions years. Any refactoring for all this time. Sometimes viruses spoiled source codes that there then so these editings and were saved (jumping genes). And nevertheless it works, and  it is reliable. About reliability is you strongly joked. Very strongly. Organisms are rescued by that they consist of set of small subsystems, and the system as a whole is superfluous enough. Therefore the set of small breakages in unreliable  - gives chance to organisms for existence. And still  that everyone a gene in itself(himself) carries also set of the critical errors leading to death of the carrier in case of activation. I doubt that though any  the code withstands at least one million years of the active finishing. Though with refactoring, though with any other terrible words. Certainly withstands, why is not present? And  the code (at level of any large product) is much more difficult and more exact  than the person.

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: SK> That is, by a gene it is disassembled it is researched on so many that it is precisely known that there is "peel"? Well  and whole yes. SK> Already there are artificially assembled people copies without "peel" nothing distinguishable from us? While only a bacterium collected from spare parts. The assembly it is ready more difficult, to break not to build.

#### Re: DNA eyes of the programmer

Hello, the Laid-back person, you wrote: I Doubt that though any  the code withstands at least one million years of the active finishing. Though with refactoring, though with any other terrible words. And I do not doubt, the eye in the same way not that side or something else in such spirit only will stick out.