Moore's Law and the Origin of Life

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by eric/, Apr 25, 2013.

  1. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #1
    Saw this and thought it was pretty interesting. My first reaction was that life doesn't increase at the same rate, partly at least because of mass extinction events which would cause the complexity to slow down, at least.

    Link

     
  2. macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #2
    You shouldn't use linear regression to predict values that are beyond the range of your data.

    Why not?

    Why look at this linear regression!

    [​IMG]

    Extrapolating out another hundred years, it looks like men will be running the 100m in under eight seconds. That may be amazing, but it pales in comparison to the year 2600 or so when the fastest men can run the 100m in negative time.
     
  3. macrumors 603

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #3
    "Complexity" of a genome is not an obvious thing to determine. Simply measuring the size isn't a good metric.

    Incedentally, the lungfish has a genome of about 100 billion bps, and I believe there is a plant with even more. There are lots of plants and animals with much larger genomes than us. Who is more complex? Again what does that even mean?

    Also, what is or isn't "functional" is a huge open question. We understand very little about our own genome, and we've spent billions of dollars studying it. So how can we say anything about other genomes that get substantially less attention or don't even have a draft reference genome sequence?
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #4
    In their paper, they proclaim that life on earth could not have been deliberately seeded by other intelligent life from elsewhere, but they fail to support this, it is just a bold, empty claim that fails in the math. If the universe is 13+Gyo, and the earth is 4Gyo, and it takes 10Gy for intelligent life to develop, there would have been plenty of time for intelligent life to form and then seed earth 3Gya, after a somewhat survivable environment had started to stabilize. Even time for it to traverse vast reaches of space at sublight speeds. Bad math suggests bad science.

    Then, there is Moore's Law itself: how does it fit the curve today? It took us about 30 years to go from 1Mhz CPUs to 1Ghz CPUs, and now we are up to, what, 4Ghz? Has anyone tried to fit electronic progress to a quadratic curve, as Moore's Law indicates, or do we just say, "yeah, seems about right," and leave it at that?
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #5
    Moore's law is still alive and well. It says the number of transistors on a chip doubles every two years, nothing about the clock speed, I believe.
     
  6. macrumors 601

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #6
    interesting read. (this is the actual article: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.3381v1.pdf)
    I m not sure however how accurate are the 'reading points'. they make a lot of assumptions which might or might not be correct in what to consider 'functional'. which is being re-considered all the time especially in higher eukaryotes, with the ever increasing recognition of RNA complexity and epigenetic mechanisms.
    if you push the latter points 'up' a little, the intersection on the x axis quickly moves to the right by billions of years.

    nevertheless, a lot of interesting considerations.

    one that i disagree with, though, is the assumption is that all life would develop at the same rate and on the same direction. we have no idea about that.
    if there is life in other worlds it might be completely different and, for example, not DNA-based.
    or even if it is (which is honestly unlikely) in a different context the 'doubling of functionality' could occur, say, every 250 million years, which would dramatically shorten the time needed to get to 'intelligent life'. not to mention the key role played by the various mass extinctions due to planetary crisis. without them the curve would very likely look completely different
     

Share This Page