I’m referring to the link to the link to the scientific paper that said that evolution would take years longer than the age of the universe.

I am saying we would not be here if it took that long.

21 hours ago, Trurl said:

Do not be deterred if the first link’s paper is trying to say there is not enough time for different species to evolve.

I am no biologist but I say these changes in the DNA would make better sense if they occurred instantly. To me this is where the patterns would come from. Billions of variations would be worthless if it took millions of years to change.

But I think this is where patterns come in. You wouldn’t have to change every combination to make changes.

The billions of variations just make us unique. We may be similar but in our AES encryption brute force is needed to describe us. We may have genes that change rapidly but our ability to describe them is why the article describes brute force.

The first link is saying it’s a dead/bad link, but Answers in Genesis is a creationism organization and not a credible source. In any event you should quote the salient points of a link.

In evolution DNA changes happen from generation to generation; they need to be inherited. If you have a DNA change that isn’t passed along, that mutation dies with the organism.

You simply must make en effort to understand the basic science if you hope to comment on it.

https://assets.answersresearchjournal.org/doc/v19/cryptographic_analysis_origins_DNA.pdf

You are correct it is creation science. But that isn’t my point. I was just trying to post support on crypto used in genetics. The other link is using genetic information to encipher messages.

My point was that in creationism or pure science a pattern exists, because if it didn’t we wouldn’t be here.

These links are by Gemini on google. I don’t google everything first because when you google the brainstorms you had are buried under an information overload.

I am trying to do a self study on genetics. Years ago I did a self study on crypto. I understand that I must take into account the chemistry and biology. But I don’t know why no one sees the correlation of crypto and genetics. Isn’t that how AI will approach the problem?

I mentioned the million person study where all medical records of each person are stored. AI could compare traits of track statistics but if genes were compared and there were no patterns we’d learn nothing.

10 hours ago, Trurl said:

But I don’t know why no one sees the correlation of crypto and genetics.

You’ve had several people acknowledge that genetics is a code, so I’m not sure how you reach this conclusion. In what way is no one seeng the correlation? What correlation are we not seeing?

I’m just trying to show correlation between crypto and genetics.

I appreciate the post though. If we agree or disagree it doesn’t matter. You guys are more knowledgeable about genetics anyway.

I am just saying crypto and genetics are both billions of instructions happening instantaneously. Without patterns they are both meaningless. That is why I believe crypto and genetics relate and want to look for patterns. I realize that may not be a completely scientific reason. And I should be looking into RNA, but when I say DNA I should specify I mean all genetics.

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

That is why I believe crypto and genetics relate and want to look for patterns

Patterns in what?

On 10/4/2026 at 5:44 AM, Trurl said:

I want to treat genetics as a form of cryptography.

Treating genetics as a form of cryptography does not seem to be a fruitful approach. A central issue is that cryptography is about deliberately concealed representation that can be restored by performing decryption. As far as I know there is no such mechanism in genetics; genetic code lacks a cryptographic transformation requiring a secret key. Another issue is that cryptographic decryption must recover the original plaintext but in genetics there is generally a many-to-one transformation; multiple codons specify the same amino acid.

How I would approach it: Some concepts from computer science that could be useful when discussing genetics:

• Encoding (binary data, character sets, message structures)

• Converting representations (transcoding, serialising)

• Decoding rules, specifications

• decoders / interpreters (parsers compilers)

• Error handling (checksums, error corrections)

I have only a superficial understanding of genetics so from here I would need more knowledge about DNA sequences, DNA->RNA, Codons->Amino acids, tRNA, enzymes, DNA repair etc to be able to see if there is enough common ground for a discussion. And as @CharonY said "The bigger challenge is the functional characterization". The above does not address that.

Side Note: "functional characterization" may be (loosely) connected to computing via an analogy; knowing a program's source code does not guarantee that we can determine all its functional properties. In computing Rice's theorem establishes a formal limit for arbitrary programs.

On 10/29/2026 at 8:23 PM, swansont said:

Patterns in what

Patterns in any genetic information. I believe that the genetic information can be organized by patterns that would make sense to cryptography but not biological logic.

Of course I believe people have tried similar things. Like how certain genes are linked to cancer. Or how AI would approach protein folding. If AI is as able to find seemingly non logical patterns in folding as it does cyber security we’d have new patterns with some patterns that seem like crypto.

On 10/30/2026 at 6:19 PM, Ghideon said:

Treating genetics as a form of cryptography does not seem to be a fruitful approach.

The second link I posted gives an example of using DNA as a form of cryptography. Not exactly what I was describing but you may find it interesting.

On 10/30/2026 at 6:19 PM, Ghideon said:

The bigger challenge is the functional characterization". The above does not address that.

The pattern of genes could be found in what we already know. I am not looking for a biological function that acts as the private key. It would be great if it exists but treating patterns should be more simple.

I am thinking what a sine curve is to an electrical signal. It describes electricity and retains all the useful math we know about sine.

Here is the link for crypto in genetics:

https://villageb.io/ResourceDetail?id=11

9 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Patterns in any genetic information. I believe that the genetic information can be organized by patterns that would make sense to cryptography but not biological logic.

To confirm this you’d have to understand something about both fields. You could point to the biological analogue of e.g. frequency analysis, or other methods of decryption.

But all you have is insisting on it with no substantiation. There’s “no meat on these bones”

21 minutes ago, Trurl said:

The second link I posted gives an example of using DNA as a form of cryptography.

From the link:

Researchers demonstrated encoding an encrypted AES-256 payload in a synthetic DNA strand.

Why do you think there is any connection between storing encrypted information in synthetic DNA and any sequences naturally occurring in DNA in living organisms?

36 minutes ago, Trurl said:

with some patterns that seem like crypto

In think that is a misunderstanding of how cryptography works. A general goal of encryption is to eliminate observable patterns in the ciphertext that could reveal information about the plaintext or encryption key.

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Why do you think there is any connection between storing encrypted information in synthetic DNA and any sequences naturally occurring in DNA in living organisms?

That was just an example of cryptography use in DNA. The link is supposed to go under the first quote of yours but I couldn’t get it there on my phone.

But do you think that those scientists that genetically engineered food don’t use some kind of recipe or cipher?

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

In think that is a misunderstanding of how cryptography works. A general goal of encryption is to eliminate observable patterns in the ciphertext that could reveal information about the plaintext or encryption key.

Remember this is just an idea to apply cryptography to genetics. I am only saying it could be useful.

You are thinking in terms of an entire protocol. Which could be good. But crypto is about communication and messages. I am only saying that we can apply it to the messages of cells. Obviously I don’t have the solution. I’m only saying it would be a worthwhile subject to study.

3 hours ago, Trurl said:

But crypto is about communication and messages.

Cryptography is about hiding communication and messages from eavesdroppers. I don't see the analogue of an eavesdropper in genetics.

3 hours ago, Trurl said:

But do you think that those scientists that genetically engineered food don’t use some kind of recipe or cipher?

I don't think those scientists that genetically engineered food were thinking in terms of information theory. I think it more likely they were thinking about the biological function of the genetic material being added or removed (as well as the technical procedures).

Edited November 1Nov 1 by KJW

11 hours ago, Trurl said:

But do you think that those scientists that genetically engineered food don’t use some kind of recipe or cipher?

I think that a more apt analogy would be translating from one language to another, rather than encryption. There’s no intent to obscure the meaning.

11 hours ago, Trurl said:

That was just an example of cryptography use in DNA. The link is supposed to go under the first quote of yours but I couldn’t get it there on my phone.

Ok.

11 hours ago, Trurl said:

But do you think that those scientists that genetically engineered food don’t use some kind of recipe or cipher?

You got it backwards. Analysing existing DNA structures to gain insights in genetics is not the same as utilising properties of DNA for some purpose (such as storing information per your link).

But if you are interested in computer science concepts that use ideas from genetics (rather than the other way around; applying computer science concepts to genetics) then genetic algorithms may be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm.

Genetic algorithms are commonly used to generate high-quality solutions to optimization and search problems via biologically inspired operators such as selection, crossover, and mutation...In a genetic algorithm, a population of candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, organisms, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem is evolved toward better solutions. Each candidate solution has a set of properties (its chromosomes or genotype) which can be mutated and altered

(I did some minor work on this (about 25 years ago), did not manage to solve the problem but it allowed for interesting dinner conversations with a biology expert)

11 hours ago, Trurl said:

You are thinking in terms of an entire protocol.

I have not posted about cryptographic protocols in this thread. You on the other hand seem to describe some sort of protocol in your comment:

11 hours ago, Trurl said:

But crypto is about communication and messages. I am only saying that we can apply it to the messages of cells.

11 hours ago, Trurl said:

Remember this is just an idea to apply cryptography to genetics. I am only saying it could be useful.

Instead of repeating; you might take a look at the list of computer science concepts I provided?

6 hours ago, Ghideon said:

But if you are interested in computer science concepts that use ideas from genetics (rather than the other way around; applying computer science concepts to

Yes, thank you that is the stuff I am looking for.

The only problem is that I don’t have the data. By that I mean a database of genetic information.

57 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Yes, thank you that is the stuff I am looking for.

The only problem is that I don’t have the data. By that I mean a database of genetic information.

Have you tried google? Example: https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/with terabytes of data. You still need to adress the problem of understanding genetics and applicable concepts from computing if you want to form a scientifically meaningful, testable hypothesis.

Note: As I said above genetic algoritms is not about analysis of genetics, it is an approach inspired by biology to solve problems from other areas.

Edited Sunday at 10:12 PM5 days by Ghideon

22 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Side Note: "functional characterization" may be (loosely) connected to computing via an analogy; knowing a program's source code does not guarantee that we can determine all its functional properties. In computing Rice's theorem establishes a formal limit for arbitrary programs.

Obviously, my knowledge in computing is too limited to really comment on how the framework would apply, though I am interested in exploring that.

I think a big challenge in biology is that even if the code is straightforward inasmuch that we have a very simple sequence from DNA to protein (something that unfortunately baffles OP). But then when it comes to the functionality we have got that one protein in an extremely complex context with thousands of other proteins and biomolecules, that change dynamically in a constant basis. We mostly understand all the bits in the cell but not their dynamic interactions and the results that happen on varying timescales (some within ms, others hours or longer).
A likely flawed analogy is like having a list of all possible instructions in a program, but they are formed and changed dynamically so that the outcome often remains indeterminate.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

I think that a more apt analogy would be translating from one language to another, rather than encryption. There’s no intent to obscure the meaning.

Potentially the issue is either the use of "crypto" in a non-standard sense. Or alternatively they might think of it as code as they not clear on both of the concepts they want to connect somehow. I.e. plain language appears cryptic if you don't know the language.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

Potentially the issue is either the use of "crypto" in a non-standard sense. Or alternatively they might think of it as code as they not clear on both of the concepts they want to connect somehow. I.e. plain language appears cryptic if you don't know the language.

True, but in the case of genetically engineered food they know the “language”

I can imagine there’s overlap in techniques in cryptography and trying to understand an unknown language, and you can use an obscure language as a form of encryption (e.g. Navajo code talkers)

Ok another question which may or may not relate to crypto and genetics.

I listen to a podcast with Leo Laporte and Steve Gibson. Steve said forget cookies the web browser settings can narrow the user down to single digits. Like 6 billion users then millions who use Firefox then 1000 who disable cookies to what firewall.

That becomes a unique finger print. Those numbers are paraphrased because I don’t have an easy way to look it up. But just as the browser settings identify and authenticate the user could you guys see any relation to grouping different DNA traits into categories?So instead of billions you have an 1 in a thousand instead of 1 in a billion. I haven’t researched it but I think this is how scientists go about it.

To me this is where a pattern comes in. You would not have to know genetics to find a pattern mathematically. It would certainly help, but you don’t need the properties of the biology to use statistics on the patterns or groups the biologist grouped them in.

CharonY I believe was arguing the point that a pure math solution would be meaningless and would not relate to the biology. And may be right. I don’t know enough about genetics to base my pattern. But this is how I envision scientists are approaching the problem.

And don’t you want there to be a pattern? Not to just be mathematically beautiful but explain one aspect of our lives.

11 hours ago, Trurl said:

To me this is where a pattern comes in. You would not have to know genetics to find a pattern mathematically. It would certainly help, but you don’t need the properties of the biology to use statistics on the patterns or groups the biologist grouped them in.

I am not sure what that would help with. A pattern in a sequence can be described mathematically, but that description does not carry the same meaning.

"Dog" is a simple 3-letter sequence, and we can encode it in various ways. And you could do the same thing with full sentences, and develop for example pattern matching and see that "dog" might frequently pair up with "walk". But that does not solve the problem to figure out what "dog" is.

Yes that is the question: would a math pattern correlate with some physical pattern?

But can you think of mathematical patterns that explain physical things? Physics is full of them. If someone looked at electricity 200 years ago put it into equations it would be a challenge to describe it. They kept it simple or at least it seems that way because we learned it in school.

Is there no simpler approach to genetics? And could a pure math solution or pattern help to simplify what’s going on?

Again do you get patterns from experiments or from analyzing the data? I would say if you have enough knowledge and data math should definitely find patterns. Isn’t that what data scientists are doing now?

It works for statistics. Something like during a football game where the announcer gives a stat that the running back is the first to have rushed 80 yards and have 40 receiving yards in 20 years.

There point is it obscure statistics. The lump of data now finds all sorts of otherwise unseen descriptions.

What comes first the math or the experiment?

I saw a thread on SFN before if math was invented or discovered. Do we define the model that describes genetics or genes work in a certain way that defines the models we have?

On 11/2/2026 at 12:08 PM, CharonY said:

"Dog" is a simple 3-letter sequence, and we can encode it in various ways. And you could do the same thing with full sentences, and develop for example pattern matching and see that "dog" might frequently pair up with "walk". But that does not solve the problem to figure out what "dog" is.

I got you. I agree that this is the language relationship again. I know that a crypto scheme works because all the data involved is numbers. But why can’t I substitute variables for different proteins? Or whatever chromosome?

Suppose you were programming a program with class dog. You put in the definition dog =3. That may not sound important but with different algorithms dog=3 might create important relationships.

That is like AI training. I a dog goes for a walk it tells you something more important than you think. Dog is many things and walk is one characteristic.

But I get your point. I just can’t throw patterns into sets of billions of data. But like electricity everything looks that way from the beginning.

I just hope we get the chance to look into this before AI. Why is feeding AI everything always the solution today?

10 hours ago, Trurl said:

Yes that is the question: would a math pattern correlate with some physical pattern?

There are all kinds of random patterns in nature. Why do you think there is meaning behind any particular one?

On 11/4/2026 at 8:55 AM, npts2020 said:

There are all kinds of random patterns in nature. Why do you think there is meaning behind any particular one?

Well that is the question. I have written here and probably exhausted the reasons I think that patterns in genetic information will not be random.

It would be difficult to determine the value of a pattern. Like with electricity how do you know to measure resistance if you don’t look for a pattern? And once you have found a pattern often it can be backed up mathematically.

But sometimes the value of the pattern is how the scientist chose the rules. Patterns are how we understand things. AI may find patterns we don’t understand. I heard it described that when the computer plays Othello it starts in obscure places on the board.

I my approach to science I really don’t believe in random patterns. It is ok to disagree. I just don’t think as life as random. But if one believes in evolution they don’t have to believe genes are random. Even if I am wrong and cells are totally random I would not be deterred, because it would only mean look elsewhere for a pattern. It would also mean genetics isn’t as useful as believed because there would be no reason to decode it and learn how to modify it. But patterns and manipulation are already being done. So we know patterns already exist.

The question is can you describe the patterns mathematically?

On 11/3/2026 at 10:46 PM, Trurl said:

Yes that is the question: would a math pattern correlate with some physical pattern?

But can you think of mathematical patterns that explain physical things? Physics is full of them. If someone looked at electricity 200 years ago put it into equations it would be a challenge to describe it. They kept it simple or at least it seems that way because we learned it in school.

Coulomb’s law is >200 years old

The equation is simple because that’s what describes the behavior. You can’t “keep it simple” if the behavior doesn’t warrant it. Then it’s just wrong.

On 11/3/2026 at 10:46 PM, Trurl said:

Is there no simpler approach to genetics? And could a pure math solution or pattern help to simplify what’s going on?

Again do you get patterns from experiments or from analyzing the data? I would say if you have enough knowledge and data math should definitely find patterns. Isn’t that what data scientists are doing now?

That’s what scientists do, in general.

On 11/3/2026 at 10:46 PM, Trurl said:

It works for statistics. Something like during a football game where the announcer gives a stat that the running back is the first to have rushed 80 yards and have 40 receiving yards in 20 years.

You’re describing two distinct meanings of statistics. The latter is more of a factoid.

On 11/3/2026 at 10:46 PM, Trurl said:

What comes first the math or the experiment?

It depends. You can have one or the other come first. Sometimes experiment drives the math, sometimes math suggests an experiment.

14 hours ago, Trurl said:

Well that is the question. I have written here and probably exhausted the reasons I think that patterns in genetic information will not be random.

It would be difficult to determine the value of a pattern. Like with electricity how do you know to measure resistance if you don’t look for a pattern? And once you have found a pattern often it can be backed up mathematically.

But sometimes the value of the pattern is how the scientist chose the rules. Patterns are how we understand things. AI may find patterns we don’t understand. I heard it described that when the computer plays Othello it starts in obscure places on the board.

I my approach to science I really don’t believe in random patterns. It is ok to disagree. I just don’t think as life as random. But if one believes in evolution they don’t have to believe genes are random. Even if I am wrong and cells are totally random I would not be deterred, because it would only mean look elsewhere for a pattern. It would also mean genetics isn’t as useful as believed because there would be no reason to decode it and learn how to modify it. But patterns and manipulation are already being done. So we know patterns already exist.

The question is can you describe the patterns mathematically?

Random? Who says patterns in genetics are random?

The whole point about evolution is that it is anything but "random", because of natural selection. The patterns in genetic material are the ones that tend to lead towards more successful reproduction of the population of organisms concerned. So any patterns that lead to less reproductive success tend to get filtered out over the generations. What results is therefore not random at all. (It is true that creationists like to ballock on about evolution implying life is the result of "random" processes, but that is because they have a religious agenda which requires that they deliberately ignore entirely the role of natural selection.)

As for "decoding", that is what the technique of DNA sequencing does. But DNA and RNA are only "codes" in the sense that one needs to identify the sequence of base pairs and then work out what that does in the organism. There is no suggestion, in the use of the term "code", of anything having been deliberately hidden, by some intelligent entity. It is just a biochemical mechanism that needs to be elucidated.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by exchemist