

- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| XNA | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 5 2013, 04:48 AM (748 Views) | |
| ryker | Dec 5 2013, 04:48 AM Post #1 |
|
General
|
will it replace DNA? Look it up and discuss! No this is not a joke. They have bio engineered a DNA like substance called XNA. Has many of the same features except one key difference. It's natural sugar strands have been replaced with an unnatural sugar strand. It is self replicating and thus can evolve. It is also more stable, durable, and thus an XNA type lifeforms would live MUCH longer and be extremely harder to kill. Could live in areas that are deadly to normal DNA generation. Is it the evolutionary future of humanity? |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| Jam | Dec 5 2013, 05:11 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Fruit Based Jam
|
I wouldn't say that's the future of humanity, you'd have to carefully redesign so many of our finely tuned proteins to work with XNA when we currently can't effectively design proteins. It's hard enough just to make a computer simulation of a small peptide. They did manage to get a XNA polymerase by this clever method: http://www.pnas.org/content/98/8/4552.full, and another lab already created a living DNA organism from scratch using Lyon the absolute necessary genes. If they can do that, but with XNA instead then you've got a living XNA organism that can evolve on its own (when it's 'accidentally' released in to the environment muahaha). But you still need to engineer genes for the biosynthesis of the sugar used in the XNA and for the biosynthesis of the XNA nucleotides first., which is another hurdle. Edited by Jam, Dec 5 2013, 05:17 AM.
|
| Long live Carolus | |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Dec 5 2013, 05:47 AM Post #3 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
to have this done to humans would require tampering with actual human DNA, if you fuck up you'll create one poor guy so ... eh i don't see the point of any of this really unless you can make advances in medicine |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Dec 5 2013, 06:26 AM Post #4 |
|
General
|
Well, XNA really isn't any more compatible with DNA than a DNA molecule that rotates on the opposite accesses (a left handed helix DNA molecule). The difference is scientists now days are completely bypassing evolution/natural selection and genetically engineering things. I am sure you have heard of the grapple. They have made goats that milk contain golden orb spider silk. "spider man" may not be such a far fetched idea in the future of science. The thing is that if they can generate millions of years of evolution on DNA, they can do it for XNA also. If they skipped BILLIONS of years of evolution and created the XNA equivalent of humans (don't think someone somewhere won't do it. it is human nature and isn't a matter of if, but matter of when), they will be a more robust species. They would be able to live in harsher areas, etc. It is insane when you think of it. The future of life on earth will have little to do with the natural evolution of species. Humans more than likely will drive the evolution of species to fit our needs in the not so distant future. Instead of disease spreading cockroaches, we will probably engineer a roach that kills other roach species keeping them in check while at the same time devouring waste in a more sanitary way and only where we want them to do it. The advancement of technology will no longer come in waves of BOOMS. throughout history their have been technological booms in advancement of science but those days are nearly gone. Each boom gets closer and closer together. We have gotten to a point where technology and science will more than likely have a huge never ending boom. Instead of having a boom followed by inactivity of advancement, we will have a boom that grows in speed at an exponential rate. The use of super computers to speed up the process will only add to that. Theories that once had to be thought up and tested will be simulated on a computer and probably theorized, created, and tested on a super computer program. It is insane! |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Dec 5 2013, 06:35 AM Post #5 |
|
General
|
The double pendulum was something that perplexed scientist for YEARS. Its motions seemed to be to random to be able to be summarized in mathematical equations that humans could comprehend. Then they created a computer program that solves this type of thing by trial and error at a rate faster than thousands of humans working on nothing than that. It tries an equation and if anything fits, it keeps it and discards the rest. It does this thousands of times then brings in the parts that works together and repeats. you get this paper. http://agronomy.emu.ee/vol09Spec1/p09s101.pdf a vid showing a double pendulum. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXf95_EKS6E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39RMUzCjiU notice how it sometimes seems to gain momentum? it is crazy what is going on in this age of existance! |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| Ichigo1uk | Dec 5 2013, 11:13 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Huh?
|
Personally I'd prefer C++ to XNA. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Ichigo1uk | Dec 5 2013, 11:16 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Huh?
|
Personally a woman swinging from her breasts is a bit.. Jammy. |
| |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Dec 5 2013, 12:10 PM Post #8 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
ITT: Biochem majors. |
| |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Dec 5 2013, 01:39 PM Post #9 |
|
General
|
Ichi, it is very possible that before we get to that point I spoke of above, we might trade in our DNA code for Binary code. That too is in the works. |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| Adams | Dec 8 2013, 10:46 AM Post #10 |
|
The Real
|
Have you seen any Python doe
|
![]() |
|
| Ichigo1uk | Dec 8 2013, 11:35 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Huh?
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | Dec 8 2013, 06:48 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Slow down
|
>comparing python to c++ do you even programming adams |
![]() |
|
| Adams | Dec 8 2013, 08:00 PM Post #13 |
|
The Real
|
I didn't say Python == C++? I was making a dick joke. |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Dec 9 2013, 04:05 AM Post #14 |
|
General
|
too bad this topic went from cool to adams talking about penis.... |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Dec 9 2013, 04:17 PM Post #15 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
i don't programmign |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| Adams | Dec 9 2013, 11:24 PM Post #16 |
|
The Real
|
Right. |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Dec 10 2013, 05:49 AM Post #17 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
hey wait a second is this thing based off of a computer doing random trial and error calculations? This may or may not have anything to do with what you're talking about (it's 6:40 AM here, give me a break), however my dad once discussed this with me. He said that some people had created a computer program or something that would basically create, over a span of time, thousands up thousands of possible combinations at a molecular level. It does indeed sound like what you're talking about. Anyway, the idea behind the computer is that it would be able to create a working anti-biotic simply because due to the sheer amount of molecules it would come up with. If one molecule out of 500 would "work" then this machine would be able to find a lot of "working" molecules simply because it would be able to come up with millions of possibilities. My dad flamed the project when he was in the USA and when we discussed it he flamed it. He said that no computer would ever be able to recreate the experience of a real chemist. A real chemist has a gut feeling about different molecules and can work off his findings. If one molecule works in a certain area but not in another (idk, maybe it can't be absorbed orally or something), then the chemist will be able to tinker with it to get it to work (with compromises in other areas). After a while, the chemist will be able to get something working. That's because he's consciously making changes every time to reflect what he knows through experience and also experiences. A computer on the other hand has no idea what it's doing and will just randomly shit out different molecules without any thought process on their structure, composition and whatnot. It's a waste of money as well since you can't really create and test every molecule, you'd be losing money. My dad also explained to me that you can't really rationalize research. You can't use equations to find a new molecule, it has to be done through trial, error and gut feelings. Once you DO have a working molecule, you can retro-engineer the work done into equations apparently, but the equations come after the working product, so the equations weren't used to actually do anything. Equations and whatnot aren't really used in research, so my dad says. |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Dec 10 2013, 05:53 AM Post #18 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
My dad also dislikes biologists, claiming that all they do is check a chemist's work. They can't be given much credit in any finding since it would be akin to giving a reward to the guy with the stopwatch who timed Bolt's world record. That would be fucking stupid. UNLESS biologists came up with a new revolutionary way to test molecules/medicine. They should totally get credit for that. Otherwise they're just fools, all of them (my mother is a biologist so he's really half joking when he says all this). |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| gs | Dec 10 2013, 07:34 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Slow down
|
http://xkcd.com/435/ mouse over the pic 21 |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Dec 10 2013, 08:17 PM Post #20 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
yeah the mouse overs are almost an entire second strip to themselveS. a second punchline. they're pretty good |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Dec 11 2013, 03:21 AM Post #21 |
|
General
|
No your dad is EXACTLY correct. But equations for something like a double pendulum is different than molecules. He is absolutely right that when doing molecular processes, having experience, background, and basic understanding is key to solving a problem. When finding a mathematical equation however that is unneeded. The computer program takes a random equation and tests it. Based off of the test, it keeps what works and discards the rest. It then tries more until it finds a working/matching equation. The difference being that the computer can then compute a simulation to test its equation that it simply cannot do for molecules. I agree with your dad thought that at this point, a computer program cannot do the same for forming molecules that have a specific purpose. To much goes into it at the moment for a computer to understand. In the future however, when computers are self aware and if they can learn from experience/test its own hypothesis in a lab using analysis equipment, I would say it is possible. Just not now, or with the process the computer uses to find an equation. Also, what kind of work does your dad do? Does he work in the pharmaceutical industry? I do a lot of work in getting drugs regulatory approval that are in R&D stage. I deal a lot with phase I,II, & III clinical material as well as assist in actual R&D drug development. The facility I work at has an R&D lab specifically for synthesizing/testing new drugs. |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| Jam | Dec 11 2013, 04:11 AM Post #22 |
![]()
Fruit Based Jam
|
It is a very difficult ethical dilemma to create a sentient being for the sole purpose of providing labour for others? Isn't that slavery? What if it has other interests and refuses to work, or makes demands for fair labour? Do you shut it down? Is that murder? Do you have to give it time off? Clearly we need to start dismantling the social sciences and philosophy programs today to pave the way for scientific advancement. |
| Long live Carolus | |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Dec 11 2013, 04:27 AM Post #23 |
|
General
|
All of your points are very valid Jam. That being said, work is being done to make machines just in that way. Those are all arguments that will very likely be battled one day. It won't be human rights, animal cruelty, etc. There will be machine rights, and system cruelty. It is not a mater of if but a mater of when will they be built. When it is built, the debate will start. |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Dec 11 2013, 05:47 AM Post #24 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
yeah he's in pharma i think one of the molecules he worked on is in phase III atm and will go on the market some time soon |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| Adams | Dec 11 2013, 12:02 PM Post #25 |
|
The Real
|
I want to be the one that writes the program that replaces you. |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Dec 11 2013, 12:50 PM Post #26 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
Pff, they're just machines! Surely ethical considerations don't apply to cold, lifeless hunks of metal. I mean, so what if they're intelligent? It's just not the same! They're not made of warm flesh and blood like we are; we can't even be sure if they experience the same feelings as we do. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Incog | Dec 11 2013, 01:21 PM Post #27 |
|
CHEERIO!
![]()
|
Such racism |
|
Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great. | |
![]() |
|
| The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom | Dec 11 2013, 02:31 PM Post #28 |
|
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| gs | Dec 11 2013, 06:20 PM Post #29 |
![]()
Slow down
|
lol 10/10 |
![]() |
|
| ryker | Dec 11 2013, 11:11 PM Post #30 |
|
General
|
wow GS, I expected that from adams but not from you... It was a good burn though. Incog, if it is in Phase III then yes it should be going commercial soon. That is awsome! |
| my name is ryker | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:49 PM Jul 13
|











4:49 PM Jul 13