Checksum discovered in DNA: More evidence of Simulation Theory?

Originally posted by FlySolo
This is where it starts to get difficult so I'll try to explain it the best I can. Even I don't fully get it. Basically, the DNA consists of T,C,A,G. So you will have triplets with patterns like TTT, TCG, TAA etc. Perez then counted the triplets in a single genome (1 billion) and discovered when splitting the ratio of triplets from black to white, well...

1. Which genome?
2. Did he count all the codons (triplets) of the entire genome (this would make no sense), or only the codons of protein-coding genes?
3. Codons were counted from one strand, or both strands?
4. What is this black to white splitting based on?


I can see how you end up with such ratios if you don't have a clue of what you're doing. For every A in forward strand there is a T in the reverse strand, and vice versa, and the same applies to G's and C's. So if you have ATG in the forward strand, there will be CAT in the reverse strand. Ratios explained?

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by charlyv

 

This video of how the DNA copies itself sums it up

The video is about RNA transcription, which is not the same thing as DNA replication. These are two completely different processes In RNA transcription DNA is used as a template to make a RNA molecule like e.g. messenger RNA which is then translated into a protein by the ribosome. In DNA replication DNA is template and DNA is synthesized, and this leads to doubling of the amount of DNA in a cell (a process that precedes cell division). Seriously guys, this is supposed to be common knowledge..

Originally posted by MichaelYoung
Sorry, but checksums in DNA are hardly evidence that the whole universe is a simulation.

It's far more likely that we were genetically engineered by aliens, IMO.

or GOD.
-second line-

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by Sly1one
I'm curious, if because this "check sum" process is part of our DNA could it (DNA) have had an "influence" subconsciously on how we "chose" or were "influenced" by our DNA to create and operate our computer systems?


In other words, its no coincidence that we "create" machines, art, etc that mimic the "natural" world. We are PART of that natural world and we are subconsciously being influenced through our DNA to create machines that are incredibly similar in design and function to biological/natural designs.

edit on 21-4-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)

Yes, I thought of that too. It's so far embedded on a quantum level, it just continues on in what we do

Which makes me think of our "virtual 3d simulators",,,,,you know, tv, computers, photos.

Doesnt quantum physics say you need an observer to "snap" our reality into place?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by FlySolo
This is where it starts to get difficult so I'll try to explain it the best I can. Even I don't fully get it. Basically, the DNA consists of T,C,A,G. So you will have triplets with patterns like TTT, TCG, TAA etc. Perez then counted the triplets in a single genome (1 billion) and discovered when splitting the ratio of triplets from black to white, well...

1. Which genome?
2. Did he count all the codons (triplets) of the entire genome (this would make no sense), or only the codons of protein-coding genes?
3. Codons were counted from one strand, or both strands?
4. What is this black to white splitting based on?


I can see how you end up with such ratios if you don't have a clue of what you're doing. For every A in forward strand there is a T in the reverse strand, and vice versa, and the same applies to G's and C's. So if you have ATG in the forward strand, there will be CAT in the reverse strand. Ratios explained?

edit on 21-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

He divided the table in half as you see below. He took single stranded DNA of the human genome, which has 1 billion triplets. He counted the population of each triplet in the DNA and put the total in each slot:

I personally don't have a clue how to do this. Assuming you're talking about me. But Perez knows what he's doing.

Here's another excerpt:

The number of triplets that begin with a T is precisely the same as the number of triplets that begin with A (to within 0.1%). The number of triplets that begin with a C is precisely the same as the number of triplets that begin with G.

Originally posted by FlySolo
He took single stranded DNA of the human genome, which has 1 billion triplets. He counted the population of each triplet in the DNA and put the total in each slot.

It makes no sense what so ever to investigate then entire human genome (ca. 3 billion bp) as codons (triplets) because only a tiny fraction of it actually contains protein-coding genes (where the triplet code is used). Further, genes are encoded by both strands, so why would he only look at one strand? Of course, he will see the genes also from the other strand, although they will be orientated the wrong way, e.g. ATG codon will appear CAT. How did he decide what reading frames to use for each chromosome?

You know, if you e.g. have sequence ATGCCCGCA you can have codons: ATG, CCC, GCA, .., or TGC, CCG, CA?,.., or GCC, CGC, A??,... these are called reading frames.. just one INDEL mutation changes the reading frame (and thus all following codons), and I can assure you that those are numerous in individual human genomes..

Further still, the entire human genome DNA sequence doesn't even exist yet in silico, because up until today it has been impossible to determine the exact length of long repeat sequences..

Of course it's possible to lift patterns from any data when so many variables are up to your own choosing..

reply to post by FlySolo

This man discovered which appears to be code embedded in the actual equations of symmetrical mathematics. Not just code, but CheckSum code!

Wait... I think you mixing up several topics here. What does that have to do with checksums in our DNA? There was a thread posted about that checksum stuff a few weeks ago, and it was related to the actual nature of the Universe according to string theory, it had nothing to do with DNA. Furthermore, I wouldn't find it surprising in the least if you DNA had some sort of checksum functionality, it would help a lot to make sure our DNA doesn't become corrupted.

Originally posted by FlySolo

Perez discovered that the ratio of white letters to black letters is exactly 0.690983

Ok, here's the first place where I had a problem with this analysis.
Not all humans are the same, genetically, that is of course why we differ in our appearances (at the very least), so to make a claim that "human" DNA has a particular characteristic down to the kjsglkth decimal place is completely absurd.

But this is easily provable or refutable.
Genetic databases are online, and such data is easy to find.
A quick search found a codon usage table HERE, based on the RNA transcribed sequences in the Genbankrimates database of homo sapiens.
Its in the same format as the one in the opening post (but using U instead of T, because this is RNA, not DNA).
Printing it out and adding up the numbers with a calculator gives me...
Black = 17295886
White = 23366696
Thats a ratio of 0.7401939, not the 0.690983 claimed.

Now of course I might have made a mistake typing the numbers into my calculator. Somebody else might check. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the numbers will always be roughly about this range, but with slight variations depending on which database you use. Then there is the question of whether to use introns, exons, telomeres and other assorted garbage, or not. Maybe Jean-Claude Perez just tried a few different options until he got the result he wanted. I dunno.

reply to post by rhinoceros


I can appreciate you questions but I think the significance here is the numbers 1.618 showing up. Regardless of the proteins. The other significance is the discovery of the checksum by Barbara McClintock. It's these error corrections when not working properly, are responsible for disease like cancer when the cell completely breaks down. And, the discovery of binary error correction embedded in string theory. This is the premise of my thread.

Originally posted by FlySolo
I can appreciate you questions but I think the significance here is the numbers 1.618 showing up. Regardless of the proteins.

It's only showing up because of data manipulation, and we're not talking about proteins if he used 3 billion bp of sequence.

The other significance is the discovery of the checksum by Barbara McClintock. It's these error corrections when not working properly, are responsible for disease like cancer when the cell completely breaks down. And, the discovery of binary error correction embedded in string theory. This is the premise of my thread.

No idea about this stuff, but it sounds very dubious. The closest to check-sum that I can think of are guide RNAs of some Trypanosoma species mitochondria (very pecualiar things.., but not really anything like check-sums..). Check-sum is a number that can determine if there are "errors" in the preceding numbers, correct? How exactly would that work with genes, where every single number (or codon) is coding information (even the last). At what stage would this information be checked and by what and how and where is the check-sum in the gene?

Sometimes (maybe even often) there is also higher-level "information" in a gene, in the sense that e.g. some rare codons are close to each other in the gene, and then during translation the ribosome "pauses" at these positions and this helps the growing polypeptide (protein) to fold correctly. I recently discovered one species, in which UGA codon has been reassigned from STOP to SHIFT (to be published soon ) but none of these examples are akin to check-sums.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
It's only showing up because of data manipulation, and we're not talking about proteins if he used 3 billion bp of sequence.

Then how do you explain The dragon curve in the DNA?
This can't happen without the Fibonacci sequence.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


It just further proves that checksums are an integral part of our existence. Enough to mistakenly discover them in a theoretical equation.

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by rhinoceros
It's only showing up because of data manipulation, and we're not talking about proteins if he used 3 billion bp of sequence.

Then how do you explain The dragon curve in the DNA?
This can't happen without the Fibonacci sequence.

You linked to wiki article about dragon curve. What's the connection to DNA?

reply to post by rhinoceros


Did you look at the link to the cosmic fingerprint website? Or see the animation I put up? Did you read anything about the 32 steps?

Oh I remember about this scientist Jean-Claude Perez. He's the one who first discovered the musical dna.
Jean-Claude Perez


Well here you go! And it's even a peer-reviewed paper.

In 2009, Jean-Claude Perez publishes most of its latest findings on "the numbers of DNA" in his fifth book "CODEX Biogenesis: the book of 13 DNA codes" (presentation space and forum around Book CODEX Biogenesis) In particular, in "Interdisciplinary Science" September 2010 issue, JC Perez published a peer-reviewed article demonstrating that the population of the entire human genome codons are governed by "the fractal curve of DRAGON (paper folding fractal curve)" and adjust to optimally their relative proportions around the "Golden Number" . This article entitled "Codon populations in single-stranded DNA genome human Whole Are fractal and fine-tuned by the Golden Ratio 1618." demonstrates how the Table of Genetic Code Universal , beyond its known function of correspondence between codons and amino acids , also serves as a "matrix of control and balance across the overall population of codons billion of single-stranded DNA of the human genome (a bit like, by analogy, parity checks in binary code of computers). [1] Draft paper of the final Article

SOURCE

If you've got google chrome, you should be able to translate to English seeing it's all in French.

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

It just further proves that checksums are an integral part of our existence. Enough to mistakenly discover them in a theoretical equation.

Yes it is indeed quite fascinating that checksum functionality could be built into the fabric of reality... but I don't see how that related to DNA. Your title claims they found checksum functionality in our DNA but I didn't see anything about that in your post, only the string theory thing. But as I said, I wouldn't be amazed if our DNA was like that. I would however be amazed if the laws of the Universe were like that.

reply to post by FlySolo

This article entitled "Codon populations in single-stranded DNA genome human Whole Are fractal and fine-tuned by the Golden Ratio 1618." demonstrates how the Table of Genetic Code Universal , beyond its known function of correspondence between codons and amino acids , also serves as a "matrix of control and balance across the overall population of codons billion of single-stranded DNA of the human genome (a bit like, by analogy, parity checks in binary code of computers).

Ok, now I'm beginning to see the connection between what you posted and DNA checksum functionality. It was just the way you worded it which I think threw me off. Now that has been cleared up I think your thread deserves a flag from me.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


See above post.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by not being able to see where I touch on the checksum/dna. Are you saying there isn't a checksum at work in our genes?

Maybe I don't get your question. My bad

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Yes. Thank you. It's really pretty cool stuff. The self correcting error code is the stuff that blows my mind. Consider this...

Say, we/everything are all part of a computer code, then we as people, are error correcting code when we do things ourselves. As we learn and adjust from our own mistakes, we are correcting errors on the fly, contributing to the larger grand scheme of the universal checksum.

Originally posted by FlySolo
Now lets get into the deep and heavy:

When cells replicate, they count the total number of letters in the DNA strand of the daughter cell. If the letter counts don’t match certain exact ratios, the cell knows that an error has been made. So it abandons the operation and kills the new cell.

That's not true.

This isn't really anything new. This was first discovered in the 40's by Barbara McClintock who went later on to win the Nobel prize.

She discovered this before DNA was even discovered? Hmm, something smells fishy here. Citation needed!