Home > Uncategorized > How Much Data Can Your DNA Hold? [Hint: A Lot!]

How Much Data Can Your DNA Hold? [Hint: A Lot!]

February 19th, 2011
Marketing Advertising Blog — VuManhThang.Com

ScienceDaily:

Looking at both digital memory and analog devices, the researchers calculate that humankind is able to store at least 295 exabytes of information. (Yes, that’s a number with 20 zeroes in it.)

Put another way, if a single star is a bit of information, that’s a galaxy of information for every person in the world. That’s 315 times the number of grains of sand in the world. But it’s still less than one percent of the information that is stored in all the DNA molecules of a human being.

HT: Joe Carter via Justin Taylor

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. Steve Newell
    February 19th, 2011 at 06:47 | #1

    It’s amazing how randomness and natural selection can encode so much data into a string of just letters. The complexity of DNA is an example of how there is a “god” who created us and everything. While DNA does not point to the Triune God, it does point to a “god” (Direct Revelation vs General Revelation in Romans 1:20).

  2. February 19th, 2011 at 09:55 | #2

    …oh yeah, I’m sure that all THAT came about by pure chance through unguided mutation. :P

  3. February 19th, 2011 at 20:08 | #3

    The existence of DNA – and its staggering complexity – is a growing problem for evolutionists. “Simple” organisms (from which we supposedly evolved) also have extremely complex DNA, and many evolutionists admit they have no idea how DNA came to be. As a mathematician with an engineering background (in computer modeling), I am amused at how statistics and probability are misused in the evolutionary debate. Too often it becomes an escape hatch for evolutionists to dive out of when they are confronted with evidence that contradicts their theory.

    The evolution-of-DNA argument has been summarized as follows: if you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters with an infinite amount of time, one will eventually produce a work of Shakespeare. These assumptions are wishful thinking at best: there are not an infinite number of molecules and chemically favorable circumstances that can be used to build DNA through random chance. Also, there is not an infinite amount of time for this to happen – if geologists are correct, the earth’s crust was far too hot for most of earth’s history for biochemical processes to take place. And through the laws of thermodynamics Nature shows that it is hostile to the building of complex molecules – it tends to tear them down instead, and to reassemble them almost always takes more energy that it took to destroy them. Example: which involves more energy – to let a cup of water evaporate, or to somehow grab each water molecule that evaporated and put it back into the cup as a liquid?

    Is it possible that “simple” DNA came into being by purely natural processes and random chance? Yes – in the same way it is possible to blow up a large junkyard, and all of the debris lands to form a perfectly working 747 jet. How likely is that? Well, I would not bet my life savings on it happening. And a 747 jet is a lot less complicated (and easier to assemble) than a “simple” DNA chain. Again, I should point out that many evolutionists admit they have no idea how even “simple” DNA evolved from random chemical processes. Nevertheless, they are certain that it did.

    But at what point does faith in “random chance” become wishful thinking? Evolution of DNA or entire species by “random chance” over millions of years is by definition unobservable – and therefore cannot be considered science. In one sense evolutionary theory is permanently safe, since it is impossible to construct an experiment that can prove or disprove it.

  4. February 21st, 2011 at 22:42 | #4

    @Recovering Lutheran

    In 2003, lecturers and students from the University of Plymouth MediaLab Arts course used a £2,000 grant to study the literary output of real monkeys. They left a computer keyboard in the enclosure of six Celebes Crested Macaques in Paignton Zoo in Devon in England for a month, with a radio link to broadcast the results on a website.

    Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages consisting largely of the letter ‘S’, the lead male began by bashing the keyboard with a stone, and the other monkeys urinated and defecated on it. One of the researchers concluded that monkeys “are not random generators. They’re more complex than that.”

  5. Jonathan
    February 23rd, 2011 at 08:15 | #5

    @Recovering Lutheran Well, that is just the way our universe is. We got lucky to live in the one universe–among the countless other parallel universes–where everything turned out just right. Try and prove *that* multiverse theory.

Comments are closed.