So these guys come along, casually expand a well-established code and test it under precisely one small condition. And when this one test gives them some nice data, they say: "Hey, our stuff is better than everything all of nature has ever done!"
A very intellectually stimulating endeavour no doubt, but I expect some more tests before I would call this good science. Claiming that "the new additions appear to improve the alphabet" is simply extrapolation to the nth degree. [1]
Oh and by the way, when the article claims that
> "the three-biopolymer system may have drawbacks, since information flows only one way, from DNA to RNA to proteins"
that is not correct either. For more information, read up on epigenetics.
[1] Note that this quote comes from the article, not the original paper. The original paper is not quite as cocky (at least not in the abstract, but I don't have full access).
A very intellectually stimulating endeavour no doubt, but I expect some more tests before I would call this good science. Claiming that "the new additions appear to improve the alphabet" is simply extrapolation to the nth degree. [1]
Oh and by the way, when the article claims that
> "the three-biopolymer system may have drawbacks, since information flows only one way, from DNA to RNA to proteins"
that is not correct either. For more information, read up on epigenetics.
[1] Note that this quote comes from the article, not the original paper. The original paper is not quite as cocky (at least not in the abstract, but I don't have full access).