Slashdot Mirror
Turing's Theory of Chemical Morphogenesis Validated 60 Years After His Death
cold fjord writes "Phys.org reports, "Alan Turing's accomplishments in computer science are well known, but lesser known is his impact on biology and chemistry. In his only paper on biology (PDF), Turing proposed a theory of morphogenesis, or how identical copies of a single cell differentiate, for example, into an organism with arms and legs, a head and tail. Now, 60 years after Turing's death, researchers from Brandeis University and the University of Pittsburgh have provided the first experimental evidence that validates Turing's theory in cell-like structures. The team published their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday, March 10.""
Rick Santorum? That you, buddy?
Science should be readable by anyone.
Don't advertise the profiteers.
I believed he invented the turing car :E
Is there nothing he couldn't do?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
recently his pardon, now this? he's on a roll lately...or is rolling in ones grave not a good thing?
Fuck you faggot
Is this a huge find, will this make these scientists big names? Or was the reason it took so long to validate because no one really cared?
Was this expected, has everyone assumed he was right for a long time, or was their a lot of controversy?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Creating artificial chemical structures based on his theory, like this paper seems to do, is a neat additional gimmick, but that has been done many times before. Even if it were new, it wouldn't be little more than a simulation of his equations; what counts is whether biology behaves like he predicted.
The real test of Turing's theory is whether it describes actual morphogenesis, and it has been shown to do that, many times over the years. That's the real "validation".
Actually, no he wasn't. He was quite morose and depressed. You would be too if you were a homosexual in 50s Britain.
We should give him the Turing award .
LOL Looser
Turing's theory was formulated in an era when physics and chemistry were the foundation components of biology. The problem he was trying to solve is: How is biological complexity achieved in terms of fundamental chemistry and physics? At the time, chemistry could explain how two poisonous chemicals, sodium and chlorine, could combine to produce a substance as benign as common table sale (NaCl). But nothing could explain how a single cell could develop into something as complex as a fish, or a mouse, or a human being.
In 1953, Crick and Watson published a paper in Nature that revealed the chemical structure of DNA. The discovery was a revolution in science because it changed biology from an amalgam of physics and chemistry into an information science. In DNA and RNA, a whole vocabulary of computing was encoded. Suddenly, the complexity of biological processes such as embryogenesis, heredity, and cancer could be understood in programmatic terms through the molecular language of DNA.
Turing's theory of chemical morphogenesis doesn't mention DNA. As such, it is too simple to explain morphogenesis per se. Rather, his concept of intercellular reaction-diffusion may be applied to cell biology inter alia, but it isn't the big picture. Crick and Watson worked that out, thanks in no small part to Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins.
That's not even a bad pun. It's just stupid.
But it's understandable considering Turing was smarter than you by an order of magnitude, in every possible way.
not a bad comment ... for a dumbass
it's hard to believe that you were the sperm that made it through
I'm a theoretical evolution kook, sure I believe in evolution, but as a gag, I refuse to accept it until it is formally proven to be statistically likely. In my arsenal of inconvenience I use simulations and commonly accepted theories to demonstrate that the odds for evolution is far greater than otherwise assumed. Mostly I'm ignored and that sadens me a little bit because this should be fun.... Nevertheless, this new finding; it does give me a few things to consider. I admit I never saw it and it will cause me some problems that I will have to adjust to, however those who believe will of course say they already knew it from the beginning, furthering their assurance that I'm a kook. This is not what they need though...
...and a pedophile, which is why he got prosecuted in the first place.
That is untrue. The prosecution was for "gross indecency" with a 19 year old man, who was also prosecuted.
"not bad work .... for a poofter"
Written on a device extensively using said poofters paradigms.