Thursday, July 11, 2013

Did a Rag-Tag Team Stumble On a Magnificent RNA?

The Dirty Dozen

If you like stories about a rag-tag group of misfits taking on the world then you’ll love evolution. As we discussed recently, evolutionists hold that the gene that codes for Xist, a long non coding RNA that performs a three-dimensional search for gene targets on the X-chromosome and helps to direct its inactivation, must have arisen from the merger of a few exons from a dead protein-coding gene, parts of a retrovirus, various mobile elements, and of course a bunch of mutations. This unlikely collection of collateral teamed up to lay down the design of a truly incredible RNA molecule. Perhaps that indeed occurred, but if so it would be quite serendipitous.

126 comments:

  1. I think everyone that understands evolution should learn to program. Those that already can write code, should really take a bit of time out to think about that fact for a while.

    I think I understand evolution, the principles behind mutation, variation and selection. It makes perfect sense to me, as it should everyone who has been explained it (a simple sentence or two should suffice).

    But, and there is a but, as a theory it is fine and dandy - but as the explanation for everything that we can observe in nature it falls short. And I am not talking just short like a little short, I am talking unfathomably short.

    Don't believe me? Learn to code, learn how code is interpreted and instructions are carried out by a machine. You will very soon find out what nature is up against, and it is a losing battle.

    For those of you who are au fait and still think mutation + selection = what we observe now, open your eyes, really open them!

    I do not suggest that God or anything else is responsible, that is not my position. From where I stand it would make more sense (I would find it more believable) if life evolved in huge leaps and bounds, not gradual step by step changes. More akin to the changes you see if you were to alter the parameters of a procedural algorithm; a tiny tiny change can alter a complex structure beyond recognition.

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bw

      Don't believe me? Learn to code, learn how code is interpreted and instructions are carried out by a machine. You will very soon find out what nature is up against, and it is a losing battle.


      DNA code does not involve abstraction or symbolic representations like computer code. Genomes are not instructions that need an interpreter. They are complex chemical molecules that react according to the laws of chemistry and physics to form other complex chemical molecules. There is no abstraction involved, no interpretation required, no "meaning" passed.

      One of the most common mistakes scientifically untrained laymen make is to misunderstand the analogy between computer code and DNA because that's all it is, a high level analogy.

      Delete
    2. There are regulatory genes that do not code for proteins, moron. Their meanings, i.e., their purpose, must be interpreted by various genetic mechanisms.

      The idea that just because some genes "are complex chemical molecules that react according to the laws of chemistry and physics to form other complex chemical molecules" has nothing to do with whether or not genes are code. The same can be said about software in a computer. It does not exist physically, only the voltage levels and the ICs exist. That does not mean that it's not information. What a dufus!

      Thorton has proven to be a consistent cretin on this forum. But then again, all Darwinists are stupid.

      Delete
    3. Thorton said

      "There is no abstraction involved, no interpretation required, no "meaning" passed."

      Yes there is. There is no chemical affinity between GCU and Alanine or between GUU and valine. The meaning of that relation is decoded by the aminoacil-tRNA transferases. That binds spcifically by chemical affinity in one side the aminoacid and in other side of the molecule also by affinity binds the codons of the tRNA. The relation between GCU and Alanine id due the structure of the protein alaninil tRNA transferase. And that structure is arbitrary. You can build other proteins with affinities for different codons and aminoacids.

      Delete
    4. Blas

      Thorton said

      "There is no abstraction involved, no interpretation required, no "meaning" passed."

      Yes there is.


      Another IDiot who doesn't understand the definition of "abstract' and "arbitrary". Having more than one chemical pathway create the same result doesn't make the components abstract or the mapping arbitrary. And proteins don't have "meaning". That is merely you anthropomorphizing them.

      Delete
    5. bw: I think everyone that understands evolution should learn to program. Those that already can write code, should really take a bit of time out to think about that fact for a while.

      Given that I'm a software developer, what fact should I take time out to think about?

      bw: I think I understand evolution, the principles behind mutation, variation and selection. It makes perfect sense to me, as it should everyone who has been explained it (a simple sentence or two should suffice).

      I don't think you do. For example….

      bw: But, and there is a but, as a theory it is fine and dandy - but as the explanation for everything that we can observe in nature it falls short. And I am not talking just short like a little short, I am talking unfathomably short.

      Evolution doesn't explain everything in nature. It is an explanation for the origin of adaptive complexity in biological organisms. That's it. It's not designed to fill the hole of an justificationist, authoritative source of knowledge.

      bw: Don't believe me? Learn to code, learn how code is interpreted and instructions are carried out by a machine. You will very soon find out what nature is up against, and it is a losing battle.

      I'm not following you. Can you identify exactly what is it that nature is "up against" and why it's a loosing battle?

      bw: For those of you who are au fait and still think mutation + selection = what we observe now, open your eyes, really open them!

      What should I see, bw? Theories are not "out there" for us to observe. Apparently, you're holding an assumption that I'm not, despite both of us being able to write code.

      bw; I do not suggest that God or anything else is responsible, that is not my position. From where I stand it would make more sense (I would find it more believable) if life evolved in huge leaps and bounds, not gradual step by step changes. More akin to the changes you see if you were to alter the parameters of a procedural algorithm; a tiny tiny change can alter a complex structure beyond recognition.

      Darwinism falls under our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge. Specifically, conjecture, in the form of genetic variation that is random *to any specific problem to solve*, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

      As I pointed out in this comment, we stumbled on universality in the areas of number systems, letter systems and even Universal Turing Machines that can run any program that any other UTM can run, in principle.

      When Babbage designed his Difference Engine, he wasn't trying to build a UTM. He was trying to build a machine that could perform a specific set of computations that humans already performed, but do so more quickly and with significantly less errors. However, this resulted in an even better problem to solve: any time he wanted to perform a different calculation, he need to set all the gears and cogs specifically for that problem, which was slow and was prone to significant errors.

      With this new problem to solve, Babbage designed the Analytic Engine, which was also mechanical in nature, and would have read and write the settings of those gears to punch cards. In doing so he stumbled upon the principle of computation. However, neither the Difference or Analytic Engine was actually produced due to funding and personality issues.

      While Babbage realized his work represented important progress, this leap to universality wasn't sufficiently understood until over 100 years latter when Alan Turing formulated the principle of Turing completeness.

      Delete
    6. The genetic code found in organisms is yet another emergent leap to universality. It is this universality that allows nearly the same code to represent the knowledge of how to adapt water, air, etc. into the wide range of organisms found in the biosphere.

      So, we're left with an even better question. What is the origin of this knowledge?

      Delete
    7. Thorton said:

      "Another IDiot who doesn't understand the definition of "abstract' and "arbitrary". Having more than one chemical pathway create the same result doesn't make the components abstract or the mapping arbitrary. And proteins don't have "meaning". That is merely you anthropomorphizing them."


      You are wrong Thorton, the code is abstract and it has meaning. You can understand it. GCU means Alanina. That is abstract us the charges tha represents the ASCHI simbols in your PC.

      Delete
    8. Blas

      You are wrong Thorton, the code is abstract and it has meaning. You can understand it. GCU means Alanina. That is abstract us the charges tha represents the ASCHI simbols in your PC.


      Er...no. You are confusing the abstract symbols used by humans to identify the codons with the codons themselves.

      Another IDiot who mistakes the map for the territory.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. Computers just react according to the laws of electronics. They are just lots of electric circuits.
    And organisms might not have interpretation, but they do have translation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, it's Nathan Schuster the homophobic bigot!

      Ready to lecture us again about how the "gay lifestyle" ruins society, and how those evil gays don't deserve equal rights?

      Delete
    2. No, I plan on raising more points you can't address so you will have to resort to insults.

      Information processing machines have lots of parts, input devices, output devices, storage, memory, etc. If parts are missing, it doesn't work. Organisms are the same. They have lots of different parts that are all necessary. They are irreducibly complex.

      Computer codes are complex. There are many possible combinations, but few that work. They have highly specified complexity. The genetic code is the same, lots of highly specified complexity. We know from writing computer code how difficult it is to create something with highly specified complexity without intelligent input.

      Delete
    3. This is still argument by analogy. To avoid the fallacy of selective reporting - just cherry-picking the bits that favor your case - you need to weigh the differences as well as the similarities.

      Delete
    4. The universality of universal Turing machines emerged from a specific set of computations. Had Babbage been able to build his Analytic Engine, it would have been the first UTM despite the fact that he wasn't trying to solve that specific problem.

      Furthermore, despite being built out cogs and gears, Babbage's Analytic Engine would be capable of running iOS 7, which hasn't even been released to the public yet, in principle. However, this would be impractical due to the number of punch card swaps required to emulate the amount of RAM and SSD storage available on even the first Gen iPhone.

      IOW, the universality your pointing to as being designed wasn't the focus of the specific problem we were trying to solve.

      We can say the same about the universality of number systems and languages. They to made the leap to universality without universality being the problem we were actually trying to solve.

      Delete
    5. Ian:

      We learned certain things from designing computers, like ow hard it is to make things with highly specified complexity. We apply what we learned from machines to organisms, that have the same relevant characteristics.

      Delete
    6. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      I'm as stupid as they come and I intend to keep showing it


      Of course you do bigot. You're one of the dumbest, most ignorant Creationists here besides your disgusting bigotry. You don't even understand the Creationist arguments you're c&Ping.

      Here's your latest bit of stupidity

      Humans design complex machines
      Biological life is is complex
      Therefore life is designed.

      Fish swim in the ocean
      Whales swim in the ocean
      Therefore whales are fish

      Let's see if this bigoted idiot can figure out what's wrong with his "logic"?


      Delete
    7. Thorton:

      You left out the part where I said that we learn a principle from making machines, that it is impossible to create specified complexity and irreducible complexity without design.

      It should go like this

      1> We learn from making machines that it is impossible to create complexity without design.

      2> Organisms have specified complexity and highly specified complexity.

      3> Therefore organisms were designed.

      Delete
    8. I'm a Special Ed. teacher so my radar is all was operating. I'm beginning to think that you might have some sort of learning disability. You seem to have trouble even quoting me correctly. I'm not sure how to classify that. Have you ever been evaluated fro a learning disability? I'm concerned.

      Delete
    9. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      I belong in Special Ed.


      Since you're a bigoted retard I'm sure you do.

      1> We learn from making machines that it is impossible to create complexity without design.

      LOL! 100% complete BS, claiming that you have proved a negative. Nathan Schuster the homophobic bigot till just as stupid and clueless as ever when it comes to logic.

      Delete
    10. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      1> We learn from making machines that it is impossible to create complexity without design


      LOL! "human designed complex things were all human designed".

      That's just brilliant logic there Mr. Bigot.

      The same sort of "logic" you used when you told us since being discriminated against causes LGBT folks many health problems, than means the LGBT folks are at fault.

      Delete
    11. Nat: It should go like this

      1> We learn from making machines that it is impossible to create complexity without design.

      Really? Does this work as well?

      1>We learn from making machines that it is impossible to create complexity without designers that have complex material brains?

      After all, human designed complex things were all designed by complex, knowledge laden human beings, which have complex material brains.

      In fact, the more complex things we design, the more knowledge said designers bring to bear when designing them.

      So, using your logic, it's impossible for the biosphere to have been created at all unless it somehow created itself.

      Is this yet another example of your "logic" at work?

      Delete
    12. Thorton:

      Are you saying that it is possible to do something like write computer code without design, or build a computer without design?

      The first and second laws of thermodynamics are also negatives. It is impossible to maek something out of nothing, and you can't get more than you put in. How is design different?

      And were did I say design needs humans. Insects design complex structures. Designers don't have to be human, they just need intelligence.

      Delete
    13. Scott:

      I guess I wasn't clear. We learn from designing machines that designing complex requires intelligence, just like we learn that you can't get out more than you put in. What form the intelligence takes is not relevant. We are extrapolating a rule.

      Delete
    14. This is an example of evolutionary logic:

      1. Bacteria develop antibiotic resistance.
      2. Therefore bacteria evolved into blue whales.

      1. I don't know why a designer would do something a certain way.
      2. Therefore evolution.

      Why is this any better?

      Delete
    15. Hey Nat, I have never seen that argument used. I have seen these:

      1. Bacteria have DNA, and we have DNA.
      2. Therefore we are related to bacteria.

      Or this one,
      1. There are mutations in our DNA.
      2. Therefore we changed from one species to another over time.

      Or this one,
      1. Bad things happen to people.
      2. Therefore, God does not exist.

      Delete
    16. Marcus:

      You've never heard bacterial resistance to antibiotics is evidence for evolution? That's surprising.



      We might be related to bacteria the way a car and a boat might be related because they both have a steering wheel. Similar designer, similar functions, etc.

      Has it ever been demonstrated that mutations can change one species into another?

      IF the Bible said God was bad, we would have no problem. So bad things happening does not contradict God's existence, it just creates a problem for conventional theology. Theologians have discussed the problem of evil for two thousand years.

      And If we are going to blame God for the evil, it is only fair that we give God credit for the gratuitous good. For example, humans enjoy seeing sunsets. God didn't have to make the world that way, but He did. What would be the evolutionary explanation? Why did we evolve this pleasure reaction to sunsets?

      Delete
    17. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      This is an example of evolutionary logic:


      Did your God design you to be a hateful intolerant bigot? Or is that something you came up with all by yourself?

      Delete
    18. Okay, Thorton has resorted to insult and subject changing instead of argument. That means I win. This is getting boring. It's just too easy. I need a new hobby.

      Delete
    19. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      I need a new hobby.


      Besides your regular one of gay bashing? Maybe you should switch to another minority, be an equal opportunity hateful bigot.

      Schuster, why did God design you to be such an asshat?

      Delete
    20. By asshat you mean someone who consistently runs rings around you logically, right?

      Delete
    21. natschuster July 12, 2013 at 6:04 AM

      Ian:

      We learned certain things from designing computers, like ow hard it is to make things with highly specified complexity. We apply what we learned from machines to organisms, that have the same relevant characteristics.


      Yes, we have learnt things from designing computers that have been useful when trying to model how the brain works. That doesn't mean the brain is a computer. There are similarities, yes, but there are also massive differences.

      Analogies can provide useful insights but if you ignore the differences you can be misled.

      Complexity, for example, does not necessarily imply design. In the case of a computer you could argue that it does. On the other hand, you and I, as individual human beings, are massively complex objects, far more than any computer.

      Now, I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure I wasn't designed. I was initiated by the natural process of sexual procreation and developed quite naturally from a fertilized egg. If you think there was an intelligent designer somewhere much further back down the line then you'll need to find some evidence for one. So far there isn't any.

      Delete
    22. natschuster July 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM

      This is an example of evolutionary logic:


      No, these are strawmen, caricatures of evolutionary arguments.

      1. Bacteria develop antibiotic resistance.

      The significance of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria, or the bugs that have evolved the ability to digest the waste products of nylon manufacture, is that they are examples of organisms adapting to their environments on timescales that we can observe. They are evidence of evolution in action.

      2. Therefore bacteria evolved into blue whales.

      This, of course, is a complete non sequitur and not an argument that any evolutionary biologist would make.

      All that evolutionary theory argues is that the lineages of modern bacteria and blue whales converge slowly on a common ancestor somewhere far back in the distant past of Earth's history.

      1. I don't know why a designer would do something a certain way.
      2. Therefore evolution.


      I agree, it's a very weak argument when the designer is unspecified and undefined.

      It's stronger if the argument is that no modern human designer would do something the way it's seen in nature if they could possibly avoid it.

      For example, since we are fond of analogies, we could note the similarities between the human eye and a digital camera. We could point out that in the human eye there is a network of cells and nerve fibers and blood vessels covering the surface of the light-sensitive retina. In a digital camera, however, you don't find wires draped across the front of the light sensor. Human designers go to great lengths to to keep everything they can out of the path of the incoming light so as to a minimize any degradation of the image.

      To get around this objection design theorists need to conjecture a designer who is both more advanced than any modern human designer yet has no choice but to design the eye in the form that we see.

      Delete
    23. natnatschuster the homophobic bigot

      By asshat you mean someone who consistently runs rings around you logically, right?


      No, by asshat I mean someone who lobbies for discrimination and intolerance and who thinks LGBT folks are subhuman and don't deserve equal rights. Someone who brags about skipping chapters on evolution in his students' science book because he's a disgustingly dishonest Creationist. Someone stupid enough to think that because humans design complex things that all complex things must be designed. Someone named Nathan Schuster the homophobic bigot.

      Delete
    24. Nat:"We might be related to bacteria the way a car and a boat might be related because they both have a steering wheel. Similar designer, similar functions, etc."

      M:I agree. All of the common traits revealed by scientists are due to common designer using the same design or similar design in all of His creatures.

      Nat:"Has it ever been demonstrated that mutations can change one species into another?"

      M:It depends on what the fallible human definition of species is currently. It could change if new information becomes available. Even while human words change to suit who is in charge, in nature, birds stay birds and dogs stay dogs, and dinosaur bones are remains of dead dinosaurs. If you are thinking of a single celled organism becomes a human over millions of years, through mutation and natural selection? I laugh at the thought! LOL ROFL!

      Nat:"IF the Bible said God was bad, we would have no problem. So bad things happening does not contradict God's existence, it just creates a problem for conventional theology. Theologians have discussed the problem of evil for two thousand years."

      M: The Bible doesn't say God is bad but the opposite. So this whole argument is moot. I think we agree on that too.

      I would never blame God for evil that men do.
      Atheists do it all the time. Why would they go around blaming a god that in their opinion does not exist?

      Delete
    25. Marcus,

      I would never blame God for evil that men do.
      Atheists do it all the time. Why would they go around blaming a god that in their opinion does not exist?


      They don't , they merely point out the contradictory nature of a concept of a God which on one hand is punishes entire populations for the actions of some,and a God who is just. Just think it as literary criticism. One does not have to believe that Ahab exists to analyze his character.

      Delete
    26. Vel, you and other atheist take those stories in the Bible out of context. God is good and He lays down the law. He explains what He expects from us. Jesus says, "You must love the Lord you God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength, and all your mind. And love your neighbor as yourself." Ignore those rules at your own peril and the peril of your children.

      Delete
    27. Nat: I guess I wasn't clear. We learn from designing machines that designing complex requires intelligence, just like we learn that you can't get out more than you put in. What form the intelligence takes is not relevant. We are extrapolating a rule.

      Yes, and you're still not clear.

      Intelligence is required to articulate the details of any complex thing that we intentionally want to build in a relatively short timeframe. Getting what we want requires the knowledge of what transformations to perform that will actually result in what you want, rather than something else.

      IOW, if you assume biological features were intended, you're implicitly assuming the very conclusion that they were designed. But we cannot use induction to extrapolate that the biosphere was indeed an intentional goal.

      Delete
    28. Marcus,

      Being fallible, how do you infallibility know what the right context is?

      Delete
    29. Vel, you and other atheist take those stories in the Bible out of context.

      Not an atheist,Marcus


      God is good and He lays down the law. He explains what He expects from us.

      Yes,that is the story, the question is He Just and can one be good and Unjust?

      Ignore those rules at your own peril and the peril of your children

      You see, you did the work of the interpretation. God chooses to punish the children for the sins of their fathers. Please explain how it is Just to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty,when to do otherwise is possible? God fails even minimum human standards of justice.

      So either God is not omnipotent, or is governed by the ends justify means, or is less Just than finite beings.

      Now of course I could be mistaken, how is it just to punish innocents for the sins of others if you are a just,omnipotent God?

      Delete
    30. Ian:

      ""We learned certain things from designing computers, like how hard it is to make things with highly specified complexity. We apply what we learned from machines to organisms, that have the same relevant characteristics."



      Yes, we have learnt things from designing computers that have been useful when trying to model how the brain works. That doesn't mean the brain is a computer. There are similarities, yes, but there are also massive differences.""

      The brain is not a computer. But it has the very characteristics that we know, from our work with computers, are impossible to get without intelligent input.

      Scott:

      "IOW, if you assume biological features were intended, you're implicitly assuming the very conclusion that they were designed. But we cannot use induction to extrapolate that the biosphere was indeed an intentional goal."

      I'm not sure what you mean by "intended."
      Do you mean purpose? I'm inferring design because organisms have certain characteristics.

      Do you believe that it is possible to create, for example, a functioning computer program without intelligent input? I do believe that our experience with computers teaches us that the answer is no, because or the highly specified complexity. Organisms also have highly specified complexity. That is the point of the analogy.

      Delete
    31. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      The brain is not a computer. But it has the very characteristics that we know, from our work with computers, are impossible to get without intelligent input.


      LOL! Dumbass Nathan Schuster the homophobic bigot, still stupid enough to claim he has proved a negative.

      Delete
    32. Thorton:

      Didn't we prove from experience that it is impossible to get more energy than you put in? That's a negative, isn't it? And didn't we prove from working with machines that it is impossible to get even as much as you put in? Isn't that a negative? Why is this different?

      Delete
    33. Thorton:

      Are saying that it is possible to write, for example, a functioning computer program without intelligent input?

      Delete
    34. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      Why is this different?


      You're not talking about creating energy from nothing or violating the laws of thermodynamics here dumbass. You claimed there are characteristics that are impossible, not just unlikely, to evolve. Damn but you're a moron.

      How did your Aryan Brotherhood meeting go?

      Delete
    35. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      Are saying that it is possible to write, for example, a functioning computer program without intelligent input?


      The human brain isn't a computer and doesn't execute computer programs you bigoted bottom feeder.

      Delete
    36. Scott, I am not infallible but I can know an infallible fact from an infallible source. The infallible source is the King James Bible which records the infallible facts God wants us to know. We can know it's infallible because it says it is. It was verified by Jesus who lived and died and rose again.

      The primary information is how to have a covenant personal relationship with Him through Jesus. He wants us to know about Him and we can know what He expects from us.

      Haven't you ever considered Christianity or have you ignored it?

      Why would you trust fallibilism as it's conceived with a fallible human brain?

      Is it possible for a fallible human to record infallible information from an infallible source? What do you think?

      Delete
    37. Marcus

      Scott, I am not infallible but I can know an infallible fact from an infallible source. The infallible source is the King James Bible which records the infallible facts God wants us to know.


      The 1611KJV is infallible? Really? Even the parts about unicorns?

      We can know it's infallible because it says it is.

      LOL! You think there may be a slight issue with circular logic there?

      It was verified by Jesus who lived and died and rose again.

      Wow. Jesus returned and was in England in 1611. Who knew?

      Delete
    38. TH:"Wow. Jesus returned and was in England in 1611. Who knew?"

      Yeah my words are clunky but what I meant was Jesus verified the old testament by referencing it. Of course the New Testament was written about Jesus and the life He lived.

      Delete
    39. Thank you Thorton for confirming that you read what I have to say. :)

      Delete
    40. Vel:"Not an atheist,Marcus "

      Sorry about that. My grammar is at the elementary level and I make mistakes. I know you're not an atheist. I meant you and atheists etc...

      Delete
    41. atschuster the homophobic bigot

      ""Why is this different?

      You're not talking about creating energy from nothing or violating the laws of thermodynamics here dumbass. You claimed there are characteristics that are impossible, not just unlikely, to evolve. Damn but you're a moron."

      How did your Aryan Brotherhood meeting go?""

      We learned from experience that certain things are impossible, like getting more energy than you put. Isn't that proving a negative? So why is learning from experience that experience that you can't get complexity without intelligent input any different?

      Delete
    42. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      ""Are saying that it is possible to write, for example, a functioning computer program without intelligent input?"

      The human brain isn't a computer and doesn't execute computer programs you bigoted bottom feeder"

      I don't understand your response. I asked if you it is possible to create something with highly specified complexity like a computer program without intelligent input.
      A computer programs is just an example. And it doesn't have to be human intelligence. For example, could bees create a beehive without knowing how?

      Delete
    43. Marcus,

      Sorry about that. My grammar is at the elementary level and I make mistakes. I know you're not an atheist. I meant you and atheists etc...



      No problem Marcus, just wanted to be clear.

      Delete
    44. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      copypasta copypasta copypasta


      LOL! Now nat "the Klansman" schuster is going to his fallback troll - regurgitating the lies he's already had answered.

      Exactly the same tactic he used when arguing LGBT folks don't deserve equal rights because being discriminated against causes them health problems.

      Nathan Schuster: intolerant bigot and not very bright.

      Delete
    45. Marcus

      Yeah my words are clunky but what I meant was Jesus verified the old testament by referencing it.


      But what about the unicorns? The 1611KJV clearly talks about unicorns.

      Are unicorns real? Or did the "infallible" authors of the 1611KJV fallibly mistranslate a word?

      Delete
    46. Yes Thorton, the unicorns must have existed. We see animals with a single horn. Have you seen the narwhal. Unicorns must have gone extinct like many other animals. Why is that a problem for you? Why would one animal be less likely to exist than any other?

      Delete
    47. Marcus

      Yes Thorton, the unicorns must have existed. We see animals with a single horn. Have you seen the narwhal. Unicorns must have gone extinct like many other animals.


      Then why don't we have a single piece of physical evidence of their existence (i.e. a unicorn skull) anywhere in recorded history?

      BTW, the word that the 1611KJV authors translated into "unicorn" was re'em Every Biblical scholar on the planet agrees that the proper translation is auroch, a now extinct type of ox that lived in the Middle East two thousand years ago. The 1611KJV authors didn't know about aurochs so they guessed "unicorn". They got it wrong.

      So much for the 1611KJV being infallible.

      Delete
    48. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      "copypasta copypasta copypasta

      LOL! Now nat "the Klansman" schuster is going to his fallback troll - regurgitating the lies he's already had answered.

      Exactly the same tactic he used when arguing LGBT folks don't deserve equal rights because being discriminated against causes them health problems.

      Nathan Schuster: intolerant bigot and not very bright."

      So now that you can't answer my question, or even make sense out of your response, you are resorting to name calling and subject changing. Thorton, C'mon. Your making this too easy fro me. You aren't even trying.

      Delete
    49. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      copypasta copypasta copypasta


      LOL! Nat "the Klansman" schuster still going to his fallback troll - regurgitating the lies he's already had answered.

      Exactly the same tactic he used when arguing LGBT folks don't deserve equal rights because being discriminated against causes them health problems.

      Nathan Schuster: intolerant bigot and not very bright.

      Delete
    50. So now that you can't answer my question, or even make sense out of your response, you are resorting to name calling and subject changing. Thorton, C'mon. Your making this too easy fro me. You aren't even trying.

      Delete
    51. natschuster the homophobic bigot

      copypasta copypasta copypasta


      LOL! Nat "the Klansman" schuster still going to his fallback troll - regurgitating the lies he's already had answered.

      Exactly the same tactic he used when arguing LGBT folks don't deserve equal rights because being discriminated against causes them health problems.

      Nathan Schuster: intolerant bigot and not very bright.

      Wonder how long I can make the bigot dance?

      Delete
    52. I know you are, but what am I?

      Delete
    53. Nathan Schuster: intolerant homophobic bigot and not very bright.

      Tell us about your skinhead days bigot.

      Delete
    54. I know you are, but what am I?

      Delete
    55. Nathan Schuster: intolerant homophobic bigot and not very bright.

      How many times did you and your buddies beat up gay men for kicks? Ever tie one to a fence post and leave him to die?

      Before you were bragging about your anti-gay activity. Why so quiet about it now?

      Delete
    56. I know you are, bu what am I?

      Delete
    57. Nathan Schuster: intolerant homophobic bigot and not very bright.

      I don't blame you for being embarrassed to be called on your disgusting bigotry. Maybe you should have thought about that before opening your mouth.

      Delete
    58. I know you are, but what am I?

      Delete
    59. Nathan Schuster: intolerant homophobic bigot and not very bright.

      Why aren't you screaming about how LGBT marriages will ruin both hetero marriages and society like you did before? Your attempts to avoid personal responsibility for your actions are pretty childish.

      Delete
    60. I know you are, but what am I?

      Delete
    61. Nathan Schuster: intolerant homophobic bigot and not very bright.

      Keep running bigot. Cowards always flee when confronted.

      Delete
    62. I know you are, but what am I?

      Delete
    63. natschuster cthe homophobic bigot

      what am I?


      You're Nathan Schuster, intolerant homophobic bigot and not very bright.

      Delete
    64. I know you sre, but what am I?

      Delete
    65. You're Nathan Schuster, intolerant homophobic bigot and not very bright.

      Delete
    66. I know you are, but what am I?

      Delete
    67. You're Nathan Schuster, intolerant homophobic bigot and not very bright.

      Delete
    68. I know you are, but what am I?

      Delete
    69. You're Nathan Schuster, intolerant homophobic bigot and not very bright or creative.

      Delete
    70. I know you are, but what am I?

      Delete
    71. You're Nathan Schuster, intolerant homophobic bigot and willfully ignorant Creationist.

      Delete
    72. I know you are, but what am I?

      Delete
    73. You're Nathan Schuster, intolerant homophobic bigot and willfully ignorant Creationist who gets a little more stupid every day.

      Delete
    74. I know you are, but what am I?

      Delete
    75. You're Nathan Schuster, intolerant homophobic bigot and willfully ignorant Creationist who gets a little more stupid and dishonest every day.

      Delete
    76. Marcus: Scott, I am not infallible but I can know an infallible fact from an infallible source.

      If you are fallible, how do you infallibly know a source is infallible?

      Delete
    77. Thorton:

      I know you are, but what am I?

      Delete
    78. You're Nathan Schuster: intolerant homophobic bigot, liar, and still a willfully ignorant Creationist dumbass.

      Delete
    79. Thorton:

      I know you are, but what am I?

      Delete
    80. You're Nathan Schuster: intolerant homophobic bigot, liar, and still a willfully ignorant Creationist dumbass.

      Delete
  3. I wonder how the Xist initiates its activity. Does it start when something else finishes or is always working non-stop?

    Most of the videos showing how the cell works show components kind of floating around. The motions almost appear random. For example what initiates the TFIID to move and how does it approach the correct spot where the transcription factors will assemble? Does the TBP initiate the exact place were it binds or does the TFIID 'know' where to put the TBP on the DNA? What initiates the RNA polymerase to approach after the TFIIA and TFIIB bond to the correct spots on the TFIID? Are all of the components just floating around in the cytoplasm randomly moving here and there accidentally making contact with the correct spots?
    I would speculate that each component is tightly controlled in some way or another. In other words there is a God given order to what happens in the cell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The video I was watching is here...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsofH466lqk&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL44B161B3F290FC23

      Delete
    2. Marcus,

      You're essentially asking what is the origin of the knowledge of how the system works, then saying that, in the absence of some other explanation, God put it there.

      First, an explanation has been provided. Adaptive complexity arises via variation and selection.

      Second, a designer cannot be the solution since you have the very same problem of the origin of God's knowledge. All you've done is push the problem up a level without actually improving it.

      Delete
    3. Scott, You are correct with one exception, I look at the details in my fallible way and see incredible skill and therefore believe in God.
      Your second point, is similar to who made God? You are applying a human characteristic onto Gods knowledge. The characteristic that all humans share, that of fallible knowledge. I would not say all knowledge is fallible but some is. Moreover, your statement implies God gains knowledge in one way or another.

      I say arriving at the conclusion, God is omniscient, not only improves the problem, but finishes it. It's complete.

      Delete
    4. Scott: You're essentially asking what is the origin of the knowledge of how the system works, then saying that, in the absence of some other explanation, God put it there.

      Scott: First, an explanation has been provided. Adaptive complexity arises via variation and selection.

      Marcus: Scott, You are correct with one exception, I look at the details in my fallible way and see incredible skill and therefore believe in God.

      Just because we're fallible, this doesn't mean we cannot find errors in our ideas and discard them. Conjectures you refuse to criticize are items of faith.

      Marcus: Your second point, is similar to who made God?

      No, I'm not asking who make God. Claiming that the knowledge we see in one place (genomes of organisms), was previously located in some other place (God) leaves you with the same problem of where that knowledge was previously, etc.

      Marcus: You are applying a human characteristic onto Gods knowledge. The characteristic that all humans share, that of fallible knowledge. I would not say all knowledge is fallible but some is.

      Infallibly has to do with whether that knowledge can be mistaken, not where is was located. You still have the same knowledge, mistaken or not, that needs to be explained. You've merely moved it from the genome of an organism, to God. So, you're left with the same problem, only somewhere else.

      Marcus: Moreover, your statement implies God gains knowledge in one way or another.

      This is a problem, because?

      Let me guess: the Bible claims God doesn't gain knowledge? And the Bible is and infallible because it says it's infallible? There are many other, conflicting holy texts that claim to be infallible too. Does that mean you think they are infallible as well?

      Marcus: I say arriving at the conclusion, God is omniscient, not only improves the problem, but finishes it. It's complete.

      Yet, arriving that that point, you're left with the same problem you claim needs to be explained. So, you're either not taking your own claims seriously, or you're appealing to special pleading: God "just appeared", complete with this knowledge, already present, so it doesn't need to be explained.

      But one could more efficiently appeal to special pleading before God even enters the picture: organisms "just appeared" complete with this knowledge already present, so it doesn't need to be explained.

      Both appeal to special pleading, but the latter is more efficient.

      Delete
    5. Scott:"You still have the same knowledge, mistaken or not, that needs to be explained."

      Why does it have to be explained? Is someone holding a gun to your head?

      Scott:"You've merely moved it from the genome of an organism, to God. So, you're left with the same problem, only somewhere else."

      And because we can't determine how God arrived with knowledge, that's a problem for us to solve? Give me a break. God will be who God will be. I will take care of things that are in my immediate sphere of influence. I don't currently posses the knowledge to determine how God attains knowledge. We are given clues about God and His knowledge, here's one for your reading pleasure: John 1:1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

      Scott:"But one could more efficiently appeal to special pleading before God even enters the picture: organisms "just appeared" complete with this knowledge already present, so it doesn't need to be explained.
      Both appeal to special pleading, but the latter is more efficient."

      God is the beginner of the universe and life. He created a universe with a potential for evil.

      Scott:"And the Bible is and infallible because it says it's infallible? There are many other, conflicting holy texts that claim to be infallible too. Does that mean you think they are infallible as well?"

      Do the other holy texts tell the sacrificial story of Jesus dying on the cross so we can be forgiven of all sin, bridging the gap that exists between God and human?

      Delete
    6. marcus, have you ever thought for yourself, or have you always been a submissive puppet for an imaginary sky daddy?

      Delete
    7. Twt, have you ever thought for yourself? Perhaps all of the people you respect in the atheist community don't want you to find God.

      If you are looking for a religion where submission is the rule, then look no further than Islam.

      If you like freedom and truth, then you have to choose Christianity. Only Jesus can fill that emptiness in your heart.

      Delete
    8. Yes, I do think for myself. The "atheist community" has nothing to do with how I think.

      All religions deal in dominance and submission, some more than others. christian and muslim dogma/doctrine are virtually identical in their degree of dominance and expected submission. You really should read the bible, and not skip the many parts that don't fit your delusion of the bible being a book of love, mercy, forgiveness, and all around goodness.

      Being a submissive slave to an imaginary, murderous, petty, jealous, destructive, demanding, tyrannical, eternally punishing sky monster isn't freedom, and truth isn't found in threats and impossible fairy tales.

      Delete
    9. Scott: Scott:"You still have the same knowledge, mistaken or not, that needs to be explained."

      Marcus: Why does it have to be explained? Is someone holding a gun to your head?

      So your not a ID proponent? A designer doesn't explain biological adaptations?

      Marcus: And because we can't determine how God arrived with knowledge, that's a problem for us to solve? Give me a break.

      It's the same problem ID proponents seem to think Evolutionist have. Why is it a problem for us but not them?

      Marcus: God will be who God will be. I will take care of things that are in my immediate sphere of influence. I don't currently posses the knowledge to determine how God attains knowledge.

      Adding a designer to the mix doesn't actually solve the problem ID proponents claim it solves.

      Marcus: We are given clues about God and His knowledge, here's one for your reading pleasure: John 1:1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

      Translated: Some designer "Just was", complete with this knowledge already present. This doesn't serve an explanatory purpose for reasons I've already outline.

      Marcus: God is the beginner of the universe and life. He created a universe with a potential for evil.

      Let me guess. You know this is true because the It's in the Bible? And the Bible says it's infallible?

      Scott:"And the Bible is and infallible because it says it's infallible? There are many other, conflicting holy texts that claim to be infallible too. Does that mean you think they are infallible as well?"

      Marcus: Do the other holy texts tell the sacrificial story of Jesus dying on the cross so we can be forgiven of all sin, bridging the gap that exists between God and human?

      What does exclusivity have to do with infallibility? Only the Muslim holy texts tell the story of Muhammad. Why doesn't that make them infallible as well?






      Delete
  4. Thorton: DNA code does not involve abstraction or symbolic representations like computer code. Genomes are not instructions that need an interpreter.

    Thorton you've really got your analogies completely wrong. Your thinking is flawed because you want the analogy to fail.

    Computer code does not "need an interpreter" either. Binary switches are sitting there obeying every bit of natural law as DNA nucleotides.

    Thorton, despite what you might believe, there are no magical fairies conceptualizing and abstracting computer programs to interpret and translate data. Programming languages operate within a rigid framework of interpretation and translation of various bits of data into other bits of data.

    Just like binary computer data ordered with potential to be translated into a specified and functional language, DNA is likewise ordered with potential for various enzymatic processes to translate it into it's own specified and functional interactions.

    Seriously, Thorton. Molecular biologists much, much, much, much more intelligent and knowledgeable than you on the subject, have repeatedly compared DNA translation and subsequent cell maintenance as a complex code-based information networking system.

    Your typical net-Evo hand-waving carries absolutely zero weight behind it. I really don't know why people respond to you as if you've staked out a compelling argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lifepsy

      Your thinking is flawed because you want the analogy to fail.


      LOL! Thanks for demonstrating my point, in spades.

      "One of the most common mistakes scientifically untrained laymen make is to misunderstand the analogy between computer code and DNA because that's all it is, a high level analogy."

      Delete
    2. lifepsy,

      Knowledge is information that tends to remain when embodied in a storage medium.

      The genome contains the knowledge of how to adapt air, water, etc. into the biological features of organisms, encoded into DNA. That's what happens when an organism reproduces, right?

      And it's these very features that you're claiming that needs to be explained, right?

      So, the question is: what is the origin of this knowledge? How do you explain it?

      Some designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to perform these transformations, already present, does not serve an explanatory purpose. This is because, one could more efficiently state that organisms "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to perform those transformations already present in their genome.

      Neither add to the explanation. (And no, the latter is not Darwinism)

      So, adding a designer to the mix doesn't actually solve the problem. It merely pushes the problem into an inexplicable realm.

      This is like pushing the food around on your plate, then claiming to have ate it. But it still right there staring you in the face.

      Delete
    3. lifepsy

      Computer code does not "need an interpreter" either.


      Of fer FSM's sake...

      Interpreter (computing)

      "In computer science, an interpreter is a computer program that executes, i.e. performs, instructions written in a programming language."

      Where do the IDiots find these clueless airheads?

      Delete
    4. Thorton, a very simple question:

      Does the computer code cease to exist if it lacks an interpreter? Think carefully now.


      Furthermore... again....

      Thorton, there are no magical computer fairies making abstract concepts out of code.

      Computer code is a string of data that can be translated into other strings of data, which in turn produce specified interactions with other data strings.

      This is fundamentally no different than strings of nucleotide data producing specified molecular interactions when translated into strings of amino acid data.

      How do you get from nuceotides to proteins, Thorton? Think carefully now.

      A codon is translated into an amino acid via an mRNA translater / interpreter. The bits that make up a peptide bond are fully reliant on RNA conversion of corresponding DNA bits.

      The language of data bits that makes up a .GIF file is fully reliant on conversion of base computer code data bits into said language data.

      The relationship is identical in a way even a 5-year old could grasp.

      Thorton, this is not complicated. I worry about you.

      Delete
    5. lifepsy

      a very simple question:


      BIG HINT FOR THE CLUELESS AIRHEAD: The scientific community doesn't consider argument by analogy to be positive evidence for ANY hypothesis.

      You IDiots ever think you'll be able to do anything besides argue from analogy?

      Delete
    6. Thorton: DNA code does not involve abstraction or symbolic representations like computer code. Genomes are not instructions that need an interpreter.

      You're the one that failed miserably in positing differences between computer code and biological code. I corrected you, but of course you can't admit it like a grown-up.

      Don't go dragging the "scientific community" into it just because you were making stuff up that you can't defend.

      Better luck next time.

      Delete
    7. lifepsy

      Thorton: "DNA code does not involve abstraction or symbolic representations like computer code. Genomes are not instructions that need an interpreter."

      You're the one that failed miserably in positing differences between computer code and biological code.


      LOL! You just repeated two of the critical differences I listed above.

      I corrected you, but of course you can't admit it like a grown-up.

      LOL! You mean you made the usual IDiot baseless assertions and arguments from analogy. But we understand. You have no empirical positive evidence for ID-Creationism so empty rhetoric is the best you can do.

      Delete
    8. Thorton: "LOL! You just repeated two of the critical differences I listed above."

      Sigh... I was quoting you, Thorton. Can't you even remember what you typed 5 minutes ago?

      Okay Thorton, then point out how I was wrong in my analogy of computer and biological code with respect to interpretation of one type of data string to another. (the very process you initially and erroneously claimed fundamentally separated the two)

      Oops, you can't. You dodged my argument three times. Merely asserting that I'm wrong doesn't quite cut it as an argument, Thorton.

      Delete
    9. lifepsy

      Okay Thorton, then point out how I was wrong in my analogy of computer and biological code with respect to interpretation of one type of data string to another.


      OK, you claim DNA is an abstract code. That means it's independent of the physical media it's on.

      Go ahead and made a strand of DNA codons from sticks and modeling clay. Get them to react and produce a stick and clay amino acid.

      Write me when you're done, K?

      Delete
  5. SO an interpreter acts kind of like a ribosome. It takes the code. Of course ribosomes don't interprete, they translate.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Scott: what is the origin of this knowledge? How do you explain it? ....

    Some designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to perform these transformations, already present, does not serve an explanatory purpose.....


    If nature is a code or information network of embedded meaning (functional and specified biological expressions), it is rational to infer the designer of nature exists outside of it, just as the software engineer exists outside of the software framework he wrote.

    We can look at pages of code that produce a visual Maze game and correctly infer: Some guy designed this. Obviously we are not going to poke around inside the game's code for an explanation of the very code itself... because we know the source of the code's design lies outside of it.

    It doesn't hinder our explanation that we know nothing about the software engineer.. who he is, where he came from, etc. This does not diminish our explanatory power and correct inference to the fact that the Maze game had an intelligent designer.

    Similarly, saying God "just is", does not diminish it as an explanation for Life, in light of the correct inference to intelligent design.

    Scott:So, adding a designer to the mix doesn't actually solve the problem. It merely pushes the problem into an inexplicable realm.

    You are certainly right that qualities of that designer inherently lie in the realm of the inexplicable, when comprehended by its design. But that does not diminish the correct inference to design.

    ReplyDelete
  7. lifepsy, do you believe in and worship the so-called christian god yhwh-satan-jesus-holy-ghost? If so, on what evidence did you choose that so-called god as the designer-creator?

    Is yhwh-satan-jesus-holy-ghost complex and functional?

    Is yhwh-satan-jesus-holy-ghost omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and perfect?

    Is there anything anywhere that isn't designed-created? If so, what?











    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TWT, yes I worship the God of the Bible, the true God, and Creator of the heavens and the earth.

      My primary evidence for this is that I was an atheist for 28 years and then had my life completely changed overnight when I surrendered myself to Jesus Christ.

      I know why people stray from God, and it is definitely not a lack of evidence.

      Delete
    2. lifepsy

      My primary evidence for this is that I was an atheist for 28 years and then had my life completely changed overnight when I surrendered myself to Jesus Christ.


      Oh boy, now we get Batspitt77 take2. Lucky us.

      One sure thing about born-again Fundies is the inordinate amount of time and energy they'll spend trying to convince both others and themselves they made the right choice.

      Delete
  8. Hi Thorton, thanks for the reply,
    I think you are little mistaken about my angle; I am not talking about high level code, such as pointers, variables and functions etc, but rather the output. The machine code.
    I think you and many others like you, don't like the word "code" because it is usually coupled with design arguments.
    That is not the point that I am getting at. I ask you and others to put that history aside for now.
    The reply you gave looks very much like a knee jerk reaction to what you thought I was getting at but it is not, it very much solidifies my view.
    Your tone and using the word "meaning" was (and I could be wrong) a giveaway of your impression.
    Straight up you are wrong (about my standpoint at least). Meaning or purpose or design or anything else that may or may not be contained in DNA to not contribute this issue as far as I am concerned.
    You say:
    "They are complex chemical molecules that react according to the laws of chemistry and physics to form other complex chemical molecules"
    Exactly, the laws of chemistry and physics are essentially the laws of nature. These laws are predictable. Which also is why human generated machine code works and is of any use to us as I am sure you know.
    We, just as dna is, are able to exploit these laws to make predictable, exploitable and interpretable code.
    Again just to reiterate I am not saying because we design code on purpose, dna was designed. I don't think that holds water.
    Going back to your statement about complex chemical reactions and the laws of nature, this is where the focus should be.

    Here is why I think DNA is like code:
    DNA is very similar to code in that it acts as a compiled application waiting to be interpreted by a runtime environment. The bases are the code and nature (and the chemical laws that govern it) is the environment.
    Fully understood there is no reason why you couldn’t manufacture DNA to construct a skeleton for a building made of actual bone. Farfetched it may seem, but possible I am sure; a dinosaur ribcage is pretty much half way. In that light DNA is indeed code like, and the more we learn the chemistry the more that will become apparent.
    To highlight the problems that I should think obvious to any programmer, I did what I thought appropriate and threw together an illustration.
    I made a very basic (virtually empty) program that could be loaded into a runtime and interpreted. This program weighed in at 563 bytes (pretty tiny) and when unpacked it contains 4504 bits of data.
    I then wrote another very basic program capable of making a perfect copy of itself, this weighed in at 981 bytes (again pretty small) equating to 7848 bits of information.
    Doing so I am taking advantage of capabilities of the runtime environment much as dna would do. On its own it is effectively useless.
    I kept the program as lean as possible whilst making the one capable of replicating itself and you can see there is a “small” difference in program size.
    7848-4504 = 3344 bits of extra data to replicate itself.
    Not much is it, a mere 418 bytes.
    Or is it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bw

      Here is why I think DNA is like code:


      The problem you have is the same many non-scientifically trained computer programmers and engineers have. You are unintentionally confusing the definition of 'code'.

      Computer codes are written languages that use abstract symbols to pass the coder's intentions (meaning) to the machine for execution.

      Code as used by scientists referring to DNA merely means a process where the outputs can be mapped to the inputs. There is no abstraction anywhere in the process.

      Agreed that both computer code and DNA can map outputs to inputs, but the huge difference is in the abstraction part.

      All abstract coding requires a designing intelligence, non-abstract chemical coding does not.

      Again just to reiterate I am not saying because we design code on purpose, dna was designed. I don't think that holds water.

      OK then, we're in violent agreement. :)



      Delete
  9. 2 to the power of 3344:
    44,086,487,669,114,494,233,612,236,265,275,300,123,775,994,165,771,012,126,159,854,775,160,951,285,090,973,512,444,623,378,554,229,037,924,642,172,590,251,844,636,891,786,176,173,784,603,309,857,921,268,122,787,134,767,615,540,902,892,806,582,564,076,678,784,661,055,743,542,590,785,800,826,739,667,626,216,241,218,057,105,254,691,482,108,013,834,287,323,852,615,557,094,419,865,826,814,373,726,858,464,468,957,462,064,112,352,789,950,149,820,980,873,996,379,543,063,914,443,258,298,097,137,684,301,351,969,754,705,757,598,102,570,667,230,201,826,950,057,486,674,700,379,987,371,348,451,988,806,839,651,574,080,032,599,776,759,291,224,878,278,563,532,578,853,188,502,208,204,911,954,568,744,030,888,506,821,013,483,579,913,188,701,693,675,585,573,477,367,194,159,498,968,525,084,518,491,965,859,602,525,207,752,206,277,772,796,798,108,792,591,259,295,255,936,000,821,115,747,597,854,437,362,963,379,216,715,135,644,097,294,287,231,790,626,933,626,123,753,408,913,839,228,386,601,987,691,453,063,053,543,717,227,253,089,946,798,096,144,517,481,519,296,985,766,305,045,516,693,489,844,143,856,949,407,723,996,554,364,716,991,431,139,047,736,082,564,458,060,185,033,376,981,149,696,202,310,130,718,354,993,992,501,906,997,685,744,846,473,641,316,648,884,571,538,371,404,459,544,221,573,498,877,604,126,450,134,252,980,353,999,152,679,711,932,416
    That number might surprise you, it might not. This is why I mentioned programmers in particular; this sort of thing should be immediately obvious.
    Now any man made runtime has a great deal of built in functionality to help you with the heavy lifting so to achieve the same thing without a purpose built environment would take some extra leg work – but still doable.

    Back to my example:
    Even if there were a billion other ways that the program could replicate itself efficiently – it wouldn’t matter. No one in their right mind would fail to be suspicious if they were told such a program did in fact occur by way of randomness. 2^3344 outweighs 1,000,000,000 by such a huge margin that to suggest that a self replicating program would be produced at random can safely be ignored.
    Selection does nothing to help problems like this.
    Summary:
    DNA is a code, we are starting to program with it even now. To deny this is folly.
    1000 bits is huge, most genes and functional sections of dna are far far longer.
    99.999999........... % of random bits will fail to produce any meaningful application in a runtime environment. The slightest mistake and it will not run at all never mind serve any purpose.
    Interesting note:
    In a functional application with no repeated code of 21,000 bits this sequence (just some randomly sleeved bits from a random region):
    100000000000000000000000
    Was repeated 15 times –the lesion, repeated data is no redundant, take out any of those unexpected repeats and boom the whole things dies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bw

      DNA is a code, we are starting to program with it even now. To deny this is folly.


      Sure DNA is a code. It's just not an abstract code like computer code and it didn't require a designer like computer code.

      Delete
    2. We are agreed at least on the design side of things, I still feel you are a little focused on the word abstraction and its inference.

      If you understand what I am getting at you will see that it doesn't matter at all.

      Think of this parallel:

      A small binary code sample
      1010 0000 0100 0101
      Lets assume that is all the code required for function "X" vital for survival it could be duplication it could be any number of things.
      Lets also assume we have a starting program that does nothing at all.
      1010 0000 0000 0101
      We just need to change 1 bit correctly to survive indefinitely
      There is a catch, modify the first or last 4 bits and the program will fail to execute.
      Not only that but modify any of the middle bits that are NOT the magic one we are after and the change will be accepted making it very unlikely that the needed combination will ever be reached.

      It may seem like a silly example but it illustrates very well I think about how computer "code" works at its lowest level and also how DNA works out in the wild.

      The laws of chemistry are very picky, the tiniest mistake will lead to the wrong interpretation while others that may go unnoticed have the effect of nullifying something else.

      DNA faces this problem, the idea that you can build on it over time with random changes and get something function is beyond a joke. If you want I could replicate the idea online and you can sit in-front of your machine while it loops through billions and billions of combinations that will fail and fail time and time again and the ones that don't fail will be more than likely to fail with the next change. Yes it could end up producing something... but that "could" is so minuscule it is not worth considering.

      This problem only gets worse and worse as the sequence get larger, more room for errors and destructive changes.

      I cannot accept that DNA does what it does, even in its most simple host through random mutations alone. Don't mention natural selection here because that is actually harmful to progress at this level.

      I hope I am making some sense. I appreciate you at least hearing me out. :)

      Delete
    3. bw

      DNA faces this problem, the idea that you can build on it over time with random changes and get something function is beyond a joke.


      Er..no. That's so wrong as to be laughable. While there are a few specific areas of the genome where changes can be fatal, most all of the rest is quite robust and can tolerate quite a bit of variation. You only need to look at the 7 billion people on the planet, all with variations in their DNA to see how silly your claim is.

      Friendly advice - you need to take a Biology 101 or Genetics 101 course and get some of the concepts straight in your noggin before wasting any more of your time.

      Delete
    4. bw

      If you want I could replicate the idea online and you can sit in-front of your machine while it loops through billions and billions of combinations that will fail and fail time and time again and the ones that don't fail will be more than likely to fail with the next change. Yes it could end up producing something... but that "could" is so minuscule it is not worth considering.


      Yet genetic algorithms are successfully used every day in hundreds of different industries to create new, functional designs.

      Why don't you explain in your own words how genetic algorithms work? Thinking through the process may help your understanding.

      Delete
  10. "That's so wrong as to be laughable. While there are a few specific areas of the genome where changes can be fatal"

    I never said most changes in DNA would be fatal, that percentage would be very small but would be bigger for smaller genomes.

    They had to start somewhere Thorton and the short the DNA the more significant the damage.

    Again you missed my point though, its the unnoticed changes that can cause problems in they they may (and will in most cases) block the possibility of a function developing.

    "Biology 101" I am slightly insulted, I am no biologist but I have a good understanding of Biology and a firm grasp of Physics and Chemistry.

    "You only need to look at the 7 billion people on the planet, all with variations in their DNA to see how silly your claim is"

    They you have not understood the claim at all, it is very simple, step by step changes do not produce functionality a vast vast majority of the time, they much more likely to be harmful or functionality blocking. It is a very simple concept. If you do not understand that much perhaps it is not I in need of 101's.

    Mentioning genetic algorithms does nothing to help you only further show a lack of understanding.

    "...to create new, functional designs..." Hmm that right there is a silly claim.

    I have written them myself for image based processing and I think it would be fair to say I understand them very well; both how to create them and when to use them.

    No one in their right mind would EVER try and improve their "code" with a genetic algorithm, they are a problem solving search tool. Very useful too but only when applied to a specific problem domain. They are run in contained environments with constrained parameters.

    Their confinement is what is key.

    "Thinking through the process may help your understanding."

    ... I am certain it is not I with the misunderstanding here.

    I appreciate the back-and-forth though, shame my replies are always so rushed - rather busy all the time :(


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bw

      Again you missed my point though, its the unnoticed changes that can cause problems in they they may (and will in most cases) block the possibility of a function developing.


      That is simply not true and shows a pretty basic lack of understanding on your part. The large majority of genetic variations are neutral with respect to reproductive fitness.

      "Biology 101" I am slightly insulted, I am no biologist but I have a good understanding of Biology

      If so you certainly haven't demonstrated it here.

      They you have not understood the claim at all, it is very simple, step by step changes do not produce functionality a vast vast majority of the time, they much more likely to be harmful or functionality blocking. It is a very simple concept. If you do not understand that much perhaps it is not I in need of 101's

      The claim is demonstrably wrong. Genetic variations don't have to produce functionality from scratch. The vast majority of the time they just modify functionality that already exists. If the modified functionality provides a reproductive advantage, it spreads through the population and becomes the new baseline for further changes. That's Evolution 101.

      You seem to not understand understand genetics or the operation of genetic algorithms even a little.

      No one in their right mind would EVER try and improve their "code" with a genetic algorithm,

      Sorry to burst your bubble but people have been using GAs to optimize computer code for decades.

      Genetic Programming

      Which is beside the point that DNA isn't computer code. It is many many times more robust and doesn't easily 'break' when modified like specifically written programming instructions might. You seem bound and determined to ignore that crucial point.

      Delete
    2. bw

      I appreciate the back-and-forth though, shame my replies are always so rushed - rather busy all the time


      No worries. These chat boards are what we in the business call a BOGSAT - bunch of guys sitting around talking. I could shoot the breeze about science all day if they'd let me.

      Not to belabor the point but I will - right now your arguments will go nowhere because your basic understanding of the biology is wrong. DNA is not computer code. DNA usually doesn't cease to function when randomly changed, only its outputs change slightly.

      If you must have an analogy, think of DNA as more of a recipe for creating an animal, not a precise blueprint. If you modify a recipe from "bake for 45 minutes" to "bake for 46 minutes" you'll still get a cake, just a slightly drier one. If you modify the recipe from "add three eggs" to "add 4 eggs" you'll get a fluffier one.

      Delete