Does Dna Know Geometry?

Whitefire

12th January 2009 - 07:15 PM

Here's a nice topic to think about: try comparing your knowledge of computer-generated graphics with how living organisms are created from genetic information. Try comparing pixels with cells. After all, how does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?

There are quite many ways to express shape. Easiest, and most inefficient, would be to define each pixel (cell?) with [x,y,z] coordinates. Kind of like in a bitmap. Raster graphics.
Of course this is a crappy method. DNA certainly doesn't work this way. There are 3 billion genes in our genome and perhaps 100 trillion cells. No way cells can be defined as [x,y,z].

Vector graphics, now, this is more efficient. Points, lines, curves, all expressed by some sophisticated equations - definitelly, this is a better way for 3D modelling of a human. A fully programmed human shape +software to run it would be "only": 20 million bytes = 160 million bits. Well, but that's only a shape, and what about the insides? Well... but maybe, maybe this would be doable, with 3 billion genes. Hard to judge. So... maybe this kind of information exists within DNA? Funny, isn't it? After all, it would mean that DNA actually knows algebra. Strange to think that DNA would use abstract concepts like 2+2. As good scientists we shouldn't just reject the idea right away, but it seems so unlikely...

It is done, however, in some way. How is it that we all have (well, most of us), 2 legs, 1 head, 10 fingers, 206 bones, how is it that wrists are thinner than elbows - how is it done, with so many details which distinguish one species from others? You see, if we knew exactly what mechanism is behind it, perhaps it could revolutionize the way we do graphics? Perhaps we could learn more about 3D modelling? Maybe about compression methods? Fractals?

Not to mention such details like regeneration of human hand or kidney, well...

SteveA2

12th January 2009 - 07:52 PM

I believe DNA operates to construct spacial perceptions in this manner:

Each atom in a molecule communicates via. atomic bonds to its neighbors.

An atom connected via. n atomic bonds to other atoms only has information available in an equivalent space of n dimensions (information or interactions for each bond are unique in their properties).

If we assume discrete units of action travel along such pathways then the information available to an atom within a molecule should be a sequential ordering over time of the sequence of bond interactions that occurred (heavier elements allow for greater information to be conveyed by each detection because they contain a larger selection of protons or neutrons for which an interaction can be initiated).

If an atom can only detect transitions in this state between bonds (for example, if only a single bond is "active" at any moment and a detection could only be a transition to another bond, then for an atom with n bonds, only n-1 transitions can be observed as remaining in the same state would not allow for a measure of time).

So if we began with say, an atom with 6 atomic bonds, it would effectively exist within a 6 dimensional space with the appearance of external 5 dimensional objects changing over time, relative to it, hence it could only see neighboring atomic configurations with 5 or fewer bonds and we could then recurse this and see a fractally growing space with fewer and fewer splits at each iteration until it encountered the 1-D weak hydrogen bonds, in which case it could "see" no further and the appearance of a virtual reflection of itself as a second strand (the double helix) would appear - and edge of space is not black but reflective.

If you try to place these observations in a 3 dimensional space, you'd naturally find higher dimensional correlations between information along a strand still exist and the appearance of these correlations would give the appearance of additional forces that biased the strand into preferred configurations.

So the most complex structures in DNA should arise from the properties of heavier elements (iron, phosphorus) and branch out from those into simpler and more linear structures when the information drops to a lower dimension form (primarily hydrogen) and we can see this reflective in both ways collecting information from lower dimensional representations into higher dimensional structures focused around heavier elements. From that perspective, a person would likely detect information from an element heavier than anything we can physically detect (though we could potentially infer the existance of such via. spacial correlations of information in DNA).

Anyway, that's my guess. I've looked at some DNA structures and such a pattern from "seed" points with a large number of atomic bonds traversing down to hydrogen bonds, with a fractal expansion along the way, does appear to be the case, though we'd likely be unable to directly detect the most complex structures in DNA as they would exist in an equivalent dimensional space greater than what we could physically interact with.

Sinister Utopia

13th January 2009 - 12:32 AM

Some ideas.

SteveA2

13th January 2009 - 12:37 AM

Here's also a link to some related comments I've posted before here as well:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry366993

gregdevid

25th March 2009 - 07:10 AM

Hi Friend,

Geometry has been called the blueprint for all Creation. According to Pythagoras, Sacred Geometry was the basis of all forms of animate and inanimate matter. The ancient scientists of Greek and Roman civilization felt that Sacred Geometry was embodied in the energy patterns that create and unify all things in the Universe.

Thanks

---------------------------------
- Fullerenes
- http://sesres.com/Fullerenes.asp

rpenner

25th March 2009 - 04:18 PM

Yes but anyone who has actually studied the biochemical mechanisms of development (evo-devo) would label all the pretentious gobblydegook about "shape" and DNA as garbage. For one, cells know no shape -- they know only their local neighbors. For two, DNA is not a "blueprint," nor is it a list of steps like a recipe.

What this thread needs is more information from biology and biochemistry and less empty-headed guessing.

"Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" - Job 38:2

bukh

27th March 2009 - 10:15 PM

rpenner

" For one, cells know no shape -- they know only their local neighbors. For two, DNA is not a "blueprint," nor is it a list of steps like a recipe."

A system like universe to me is a self-organizing kind of "organism" - there is no script there is no instructor - and to me everything starts in the simplest and develop into more and more complex.

This implicate that information about how to develop and how to organize is being build into smallest - and shape would be a very logic and appealing way of storing all the needed information for universe to organize into more and more complex.

Beer w/Straw

27th March 2009 - 10:54 PM

QUOTE (bukh+Mar 27 2009, 10:15 PM)

So...

The simplest being a 0 dimensional point?

bukh

28th March 2009 - 12:11 AM

Bw/S

"The simplest being a 0 dimensional point?"

Perhaps - but such simplicity carry no information, it is the same as saying non-existent - it is a meaningless concept if one tries to define and create something, never start up with nothing, never start up with dimensionless points.

To me it is more relevant trying to identify the simplest that work -

If one dilute smallest into a dimensionless point - irrespective of the scale it is being looked at - then it is being diluted into no information. Likewise I do not think that a number can be diluted into dimensionless - nature cannot be diluted into dimensionless - singularity is no option -

Beer w/Straw

28th March 2009 - 12:24 AM

So then what constitutes the simplest?

bukh

28th March 2009 - 07:23 AM

Bw/S

"So then what constitutes the simplest?"

Are you now referring to"the simplest" You/we can think of or "the simplest" that meaningful can be used in a context for the construct of Universe ??

Peterson

11th April 2009 - 06:53 PM

I think so.Because DNA carries a geometrical structure.It signifies that DNA creation is a type of geometrical creation.

s0cratus

17th April 2009 - 05:06 AM

QUOTE (Peterson+Apr 11 2009, 06:53 PM)

I think so.Because DNA carries a geometrical structure.It signifies that DNA creation is a type of geometrical creation.

Does DNA Know Geometry ?
Why DNA knows geometry ?
=========== . .
The Origin of Consciousness.
================
Descartes said: ‘I think , therefore I am’
Buddhist monk says ‘I think not, therefore I am’
==========================
Consciousness is real but nonphyslcal.
Consciousness is connected to physical reality .
================
There are many theories explaining the origin of consciousness.
Here some of them.
1)
God blew consciousness into man
whom he created from clay.
2)
20 billions years ago all matter (all elementary particles,
all quarks and their girlfriend antiquarks, all kinds of waves:
electromagnetic, gravitational, muons….) –
all was assembled in “singular point”.
Then there was a Big Bang .
Question: when was there consciousness?
a) Before explosion,
b) At the moment of explosion,
c) After the explosion.
It is more probable, that it existed after the explosion.
Then there is a question: what particles (or waves)
were carriers of consciousness?
Mesons, muons, leptons, bosons (W+, W- , Z) ,
quarks, …gluons field ….. ets …?
On this question the Big Bang theory does not give an answer.
But can it be that consciousness was formed as a result
of the interaction of all elementary particles, all waves, all fields?
Then, on the one hand, the reason for the origin of the Big Bang is clear:
everything was mixed, including consciousness, and when it is mixed
then it is possible to construct all and everything.
But on the other hand, it is not clear:
why farmer John can think simply, clearly and logically.
3) Ancient Indian Veda approve, that origination of consciousness
is connected with the existence of spiritual, conscious particles – purusha .
4) Modern physics affirms that the Quantum of light
is a privileged particle as in one cases,
it behave as a particle, and in other case, acts in a way which causes a wave.
How is a particle capable of creating a wave?
The behavior of Light quanta (dualism ) is explained simply.
A quantum of light has its own initial consciousness.
This consciousness is not rigid, but develops.
The development of consciousness goes
‘ from vague wish up to a clear thought ’.
#
Consciousness is connected to physical reality.
It is fact that consciousness is itself already dualistic.
This dualism stays on the basis of Quantum Physics.
Therefore ‘ Quantum Theory of Consciousness’
can be understand only with connection to the
‘ Theory of Light Quanta’.
================ . .
#
Where does the information come from?

Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – were assembled in a “single point”.
It means that all information also was assembled in a "single point".
And then there was " big bang " and all information flew to bits
in different sides.
Suppose , that every bits of a "single point", every particle
of a "single point" is the owner of some information.
Then there are two possibilities:
a) every particle has the own information and after 20 billions years
they accidentally united and created everything including a man.
The aim of it is to observe all accidental possibilities.
b) in the beginning every particle has zero information .
Question :" How does zero information further arrive to a
very high informational level ? "
========.
If you go on way a) - so maybe yes, or maybe no,
you will pass through a forest of knowledge .
If you go on way b) - you will pass a forest of
theoretical knowledge along a straight road.
========.
Why I say so?
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct : there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see at first, that electron does, it interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen. This is simplest design,
which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if to give
suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
=======================
Was I mistaken? No.
Because according to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
========.
Why does only electron have quant of information?
Maybe does proton also have quant of information?
No. Single proton has no quant of information.
Why?
Because information can be transfered only by
electromagnetic fields. And we don’t have a theory
about protono-magnetic fields.
#
In my opinion the Electron is quant of information.
==========.
Once upon a time, in the beginning, there was
one "single point " accidentally.
Then it has accidentally blown up:
Big Bang " has taken place accidentally. (?)
It was the reason of accidental ( ?) creation of some thousands
kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles.
Then atom of hydrogen was formed accidentally. (?)
Then complex atom was formed accidentally. (?)
Then stars were formed accidentally. (?)
Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally. (?)
Then the fauna was formed accidentally. (?)
Then the animal kingdom was formed accidentally. (?)
Then the man was created accidentally. (?)
And this man can accidentally think logically. (?)
But of course, unfortunately, not always.
#
Someone wrote that the chances for the universe to expand,
for the atom to exist, for the earth to bear life and for humanity
to find place is as little as on to a number so big that it would
require 244 zeros to write it down.
==============.
Many years ago man has accustomed some wild
animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.)
and has made them domestic ones.
But the man understands badly the four-footed friends.
In 1897 J. J. Thomson discovered new particle - electron.
Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him.
But the man does not understand what an electron is.
==============
By my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest thing (for example an photon /electron) and
then to study the far away space and particles
(for example dark, quark, meson, boson. . . . etc particles).
===============. .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
================ . .

s0cratus

21st April 2009 - 09:42 AM

#
Vitalism played a pivotal role in the history of chemistry and
biology, in the history of medical philosophy and psychology .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_biology

============ . .

s0cratus

23rd April 2009 - 10:29 AM

Does DNA have a Soul ?

Today scientists think that everything begins from ‘Big Bang’.
And according to ‘big bang’ our Universe exist 13 (+ ) billion years.
My question :
Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zigota] only in 280 days
according to Probability theory?
If " yes "it will be take time not 280 days but will take time more
than our Universe exist.
So, maybe the pregnancy woman was before the ‘big bang’.
If ‘ no’ so the process must have aim.
It means somebody /something must manage this process.

My opinion :
It is impossible, according to Probability theory ,
to create a physical body (child ) from billions
and billions different cells only in 280 days.
It means the Probability theory
doesn’t work in cell theory, doesn’t work in biophysics.
It means the Probability theory doesn’t work in period of woman's
pregnancy. It means somebody /something must manage
the creating of child .
The religion says : ‘it is soul’.
I say:
‘All DNA life forms have a ‘Soul‘ and the privileged particle
Quantum of light / Electron manages this process.’
And if you look back in history of physics you can see that
until the time of Newton/ Leipzig most scientists were
sure, that two kinds of matter existed: vital (animate) and
inanimate. But after the French revolution ( Laplace, ...etc)
this point of view changed. It was seemed that the vitalism
idea died. But SRT + Quantum theory explain us that we are mistaken.
#
Someone wrote that the chances for the Universe to expand,
for the atom to exist, for the earth to bear life and for humanity
to find place is as little as on to a number so big that it would
require 244 zeros to write it down.
==============.

sporacle

30th April 2009 - 03:38 AM

Does DNA “know” geometry? No, but it is geometry.

Only homeotherms with a cerebral cortex can mentally image geometry and changes in geometrical relationships (process geometry). They use extrapolations of the mental images, making predictions that help them to acquire dinner and avoid becoming dinner (knowledge).

Only the human cerebral cortex can assign symbols (simple mental images) to mental images of process geometry and manipulate these to extend mental models. This permits building transducers to extend observations and modeling far more about process geometry.

All reality is process geometry. It’s all interrelated and takes us a while to figure out the details.

s0cratus

30th April 2009 - 04:43 AM

QUOTE (sporacle+Apr 30 2009, 03:38 AM)

Only homeotherms with a cerebral cortex can mentally image geometry and changes . . . . . . . . . .
===========================

Do ‘ Only homeotherms’ know the geometrical formulas
( for example : c/d = pi =3,14 . . . . .or S = 4pir^2 . . .or . . .? ) ?
================================

sporacle

30th April 2009 - 05:29 AM

QUOTE (s0cratus+Apr 30 2009, 04:43 AM)

No. Homeotherms (other than people) use images of process geometry, but cannot represent components of these with mental symbols and mentally manipulate the symbols.

An old common assumption is that conscious, logical thinking requires symbols, but this is not so. Homeotherms think and are aware. Have you ever hunted turkeys or deer? They often outsmart me in the shared 3D system. And when you plan to give the dog a bath, it's gone.

As I suggested, only the human cerebral cortex can assign symbols (simple mental images) to mental images of process geometry and manipulate these to extend mental models.

s0cratus

30th April 2009 - 12:37 PM

QUOTE (sporacle+Apr 30 2009, 05:29 AM)

No. Homeotherms (other than people) use images of process geometry,
but cannot represent components of these with mental symbols and
mentally manipulate the symbols.

Socratus.
In another words:
Homeotherms (other than people) use images – GEOMETRY –
of process geometry,
but cannot represent components of these – GEOMETRY- with mental
symbols – GEOMETRY - and mentally manipulate the symbols - GEOMETRY.

My God.

An old common assumption is that conscious, logical thinking requires
symbols - Geometry, but this is not so.

Socratus.
But what you said before . . .?

Homeotherms think and are aware.

Socratus.
No words.

Have you ever hunted turkeys or deer?
They often outsmart me in the shared 3D system.
And when you plan to give the dog a bath, it's gone.

!!!
As I suggested, only the human cerebral cortex can assign symbols
Geometry- (simple mental images – Geometry-) to mental images- Geometry -
of process geometry and manipulate these to extend mental models- Geometry.

Socratus.
In beginning was Mathematician professor of Geometry/ Images
and He created another different mental images- Geometry . . . . . . .
Have you ever hunted turkeys or deer?
These animals are two of millions of His mental images- Geometry work.
=========================

sporacle

15th May 2009 - 08:24 AM

Thanks, sOcratus

I think I understand what you are saying, and if not, correct me.

Personally I think God is geometry and also probability and also all of reality. As people wrote in the old books God always was, is and always will be. There is nothing else but God (all reality).

I think where we differ is that I think intelligence is an emergent property in the sequence of the evolution of God (reality).

I think intelligence began during the evolution of the homeotherm brain starting with decussation (crossing) of neurons from one side of the brain to the other for coordinating the activity of one side of the animal with the other (difference in the way lizards run and a homeotherm gallop or hop). This internal neuron crossover in the brain (internal feedback loops) permitted the subsequent evolution of a cortical process that can be uncoupled from direct interaction with the environment for independent mental imaging—thinking, including conscious awareness of self in relation to the environment. This also permits the evolutionary process entirely inside the brain, randomly recombining fragments of mental images to find ones that fit (same as AI researchers are doing now with computer systems). This includes a lot of images that don’t fit and the process is energy expensive, and to be effective it must be kept at a relatively constant temperature.

We humans have subsequently evolved the capacity to use symbols (small mental images) for larger mental images, and we can thus define geometrical relationships of entities around us.

As I suggested elsewhere (and a lot of guys think it’s nuts), God (reality) is an unlimited entity but we can define the local geometry and probabilities of It’s operation and how everything fits together and evolves. Whatever.

My main point is we are not the end of the evolutionary sequence of God’s intelligence, and our role is doing our part in creating the rest of the sequence of evolution of the mind of God through ongoing levels or organization. We’re starting the assembly of the next level of the mind of God on our planet now--all of us together. Personally I think as physics evolves further we will join the conversation out there in real time as part of the next level of organization.

It’s a major responsibility for all of us, and I think it’s a safe bet eventually God will know geometry way beyond what we can imagine. The reason I’m Christian is I think the central theme of reality in human activity is voluntary cooperation, and it takes courage because as Jesus demonstrated, it can still be dangerous and may mean sacrifice.

spo

rmuldavin

18th May 2009 - 12:59 PM

Homeo-thermo-dynamics
Iso-thermo-neuro-axionics
poetical econo-messy-antics

sporacle to s0cratus,
sporacle to s0cratus,
s0cratus to sporacle,
sporacle to s0cratus....

Like the idea that the constant brain temperature allowed some sort of mental imagining due to extended neurons to different parts of the brain. Thanks, but complexity adds more. For three days ago my wife and I distinctly heard one of our three cats say to me while looking into my eyes [he seems to have short sighted-ness-rm] and meowed distinctly saying : "grandpa". I was stunned and asked my wife sitting close by, "did you hear Firty say 'grandpa'?".

Mutual Hypnotic state?

Voluntary cooperation, "way to go", so this calls for some "googling", and yes "sacrifice", infinite Grand Old Design?, that will take a while, but read the warming labels.

Time release time capsules dissolve wasted energy.

Geometry? Pass me the segmented soccer or volley ball, include a cell phone when tossing over the prison fences, for there are more uses than assisting warring nations

Poems can be in code, leading to the mother lode, god on literate de-man (gold), material physics counts, strings out the symbols, one thing at a time, picture or multimedia.

Throw in occasional rhymes, but sacrifice preached, that is borderline crime, when designed to sustain the power of a few, who send the troops out of view, to die and be bludgeoned. Cop-out, professional or not.

No, answers go with more questions, more questions go with education first, for infinities of many kinds to lurk within each dimension.

thus an answer is in suspension,

And the cat came back, best, rm

sporacle

19th May 2009 - 06:29 AM

Round and round we all go with words, but don't let the cat get your tongue. Cats are smart, but can't speculate about what infinity may be doing where we live. My cat (best buddy) is gone but she still exists in the picture on my cellphone and in my brain and still provides encouragement.

s0cratus

21st May 2009 - 12:28 PM

One comment:
===========
socrats,

DNA doesn't know anything, and science has already worked out how embryological development happens. It occurs by spatial and temporal gradient cell signalling leading to cellular differentiation, chemoattraction, and chemotaxis. There are no maps and blue prints that cells fill up. It is dynamic and happens due to combinatorial interactions between gene products that get expressed at various times depending on their location within the developing embryo (and hence the identity and quantity of signalling factors and cell-cell contacts they experience).

In simple organisms like the C. elegans, which is made up of just about 1000 cells, we are able to fully predict the developmental process and where each cells is going to go, and we also know which genes control what and if you disrupt which genes when, how that would affect the final outcome.

Also, everything you've said about electrons and atoms is wrong. If in the future you have questions, I would suggest you ask them concisely without jamming your post with nonsensical gibberish.

I think this highlights the problem with some amateur philosophizers on certain scientific topics. This simply don't know what our current state of knowledge is and that their thoughts are obsolete and erraneous right off the bat.

/ BioWizard /
========== . .

s0cratus

22nd May 2009 - 04:36 AM

The questions are:
How does DNA "draw" the shape of a cat ?
How the cats can say 'grandpa' . . . .or
‘I am hungry. Give me my food’ . . . . or . .
‘ I want to go for a walk ‘ . . . . .etc.
How cat can be the ‘ best buddy ‘ for man ?
#
‘How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
So... maybe this kind of information exists within DNA?
Hard to judge.’
Whitefire

P.S.
Information = Consciousness.
So... maybe this kind of consciousness exists within DNA?
Hard to judge. ???
!!!
============

s0cratus

23rd May 2009 - 04:12 AM

Bioartists Create Sculptures from Living Human Tissue
======== . .
There’s a long history of artists using and transforming technology for their own purposes, for example, the pencil, or the camera, or the light inscriptions of Lichtfaktor. But when the technology is preceded by a bio, it crosses a threshold that is both more exciting and fraught than any chocolate-covered Jesus sculpture.
NPR reported this week on a group of artists known as SymbioticA, working out of the University of Western Australia. Using tissue engineering techniques, they’ve grown:
a replica of an ear with living human skin cells, miniature wings with the flesh of a pig and mouse cells in the shape of a tiny leather jacket.
The story threw in some good, gross detail about their art’s lifecycle:
One of SymbioticA’s recent projects entailed growing frog tissue in the form of a steak. At the end of the exhibit, Catts fried it up and ate it. The flavor left something to be desired.
"The polymer didn’t degrade completely, and the muscle cells, we didn’t exercise them, so they tasted like jelly. It was like eating jelly on plastic," Catts says.

Tissue engineering is fun and all, but what about whole organisms? NPR included Eduardo Kac’s transgenic art project, GFP Bunny, which created a rabbit that fluoresced green under blue light. Way back in 2002, our own Kristen Philipkoski spoke with the lab who did the work for him, and found them furious at his representation of the the rabbit as glowing neon green in standard lighting conditions:

"Kac fabricated data for his personal use," Houdebine said. "This is why we totally stopped any contact with him."
"The scientific fact is that the rabbit is not green," he said. "He should have never published that. This was very disagreeable for me."

Kac strikes me as a guy who was ahead of the curve, but also a bit of a pseudoartist. After all, he didn’t create the bunny himself. What I’d really like to report on are some people working on actual DIY transgenic organisms. If you know of anyone doing something like that, let me know.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/...a/#previouspost

===================== . .

sporacle

23rd May 2009 - 07:24 AM

BioWizard mentioned C. Elegans. Studying simpler creatures has lessons about evolution.

Researchers reporting in Nature, 30 April, 2009, pg 1171 describe how a single genetic difference and resulting protein function in the 302 neuron nervous system alters the social behavior of C Elegans. The difference is individual foraging or cooperative foraging. Maybe worms have lessons for us.

DNA is dumb, but is an integral component of the evolution of intelligence.

Fluorescent green rabbits would probably reproduce like the others and eat your garden vegetables, but they would be easier to shoot and should make a good dinner.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.