tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post8219424120908316718..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: A Code That Isn't UniversalUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49498271950122748192010-05-21T13:46:54.509-07:002010-05-21T13:46:54.509-07:00Michael: I do understand your faith statements in ...<b>Michael</b>: <i>I do understand your faith statements in the efficacy of "genetic drift", but you clearly cannot see how bloated and pretentious that hypothesis is. </i><br /><br />Michael, you suggested that darwinism requires that multiple strains of genetic codes should be extant. That is not entailed in the theory, and there are several mechanisms that might result in a single genetic code, including selection and drift. <br /><br /><b>Michael</b>: <i>Fitness through multiple mutated computational mechanisms </i><br /><br />Your statement seemed to imply multiple strains, each with a different genetic code, but equally fit. If this is correct, then please respond to this statement: <br /><br />If we have two equally fit strains, then eventually — all else equal — one strain will become fixed and the other extinct. This is a simple mathematical consequence. <br /><br />Otherwise, you may want to clarify your hypothesis, then.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84821897934224818832010-05-21T08:15:48.613-07:002010-05-21T08:15:48.613-07:00Zachriel,
I have made the mistake of making comme...Zachriel,<br /><br />I have made the mistake of making comments on this subject on Dr. Hunter blog here as well as the same post on Uncommon Descent.<br />http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-code-within-the-code/#comments (mullerpr is another account name)<br /><br />My comment regarding my ignorance of bio-lingo was when I thought that "the answer provided..." by you was the "stereochemical hypothesis" actually presented by Nakashima on that discussion.<br /><br />I do understand your faith statements in the efficacy of "genetic drift", but you clearly cannot see how bloated and pretentious that hypothesis is. In this application you simply assume mutation and selection will only choose one DNA code system in the end. I simply challenge that state of affairs not to be consistent with random forming patterns under constant pressure from random natural interventions.<br /><br />I would therefore elaborate my actual argument to abimer:<br /><br />"In fact Darwinism should have achieved the same computational mechanism [...that is mechanisms that create "fit for survival" life forms] using an entirely different code system, leading to the same computational outcomes [same fitness level as current life forms]. Call it fitness through multiple mutated computational mechanisms.<br /><br />You clearly did not get the consequences of my argument because you just assumed I did not have "selection" or "fit for survival" concepts in mind. I clearly had that in mind in the first place. I even gave it a name "Fitness through multiple mutated computational mechanisms"Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51868726226133970802010-05-21T06:38:43.164-07:002010-05-21T06:38:43.164-07:00Michael, do you understand the basic evolutionary ...Michael, do you understand the basic evolutionary mechanisms? If we have two competing strains, with different but just as efficient genetic codes, then eventually — all else equal — one strain will eventually become fixed and the other extinct. This is a simple mathematical consequence. All else is not always equal, but you might start by trying to understand this fundamental concept of genetic drift.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85038372393347797692010-05-21T06:20:26.836-07:002010-05-21T06:20:26.836-07:00Michael: I am bored with your line of argument in ...<b>Michael</b>: <i>I am bored with your line of argument in general as I stated before, you just don't see the flaws of your beloved Darwinism. </i><br /><br />You admit you don't understand the argument, but instead of asking questions, you reject it out of hand. <br /><br /><b>Michael</b>: <i>If Darwinism were the processes that caused life you should actually see life forms using various code systems successfully to the same extent that you have so many different building blocks. </i><br /><br />That is not a necessary consequence of darwinian mechanisms. It is quite possible that competition, or even drift, would eliminate most or all strains.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14403453361197250682010-05-21T03:16:08.445-07:002010-05-21T03:16:08.445-07:00Zachriel said...
"You haven't indicat...Zachriel said...<br /><br /> "You haven't indicated any willingness to address the answer provided. Simply waving your hands is not an argument. "<br /><br />I really tried but my bio-know-how is not up to par and therefore I asked to be enlightened by someone who can break it down in layman's terms. (I am not a biologist - information science is my field) You would see my questions remain focused pure science method, philosophy and information theory. I never pretended to know bio terms inside out.<br /><br />I will consider myself disqualified to discuss the matter with you, if you prefer... but honestly... I am bored with your line of argument in general as I stated before, you just don't see the flaws of your beloved Darwinism.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74874776530159231132010-05-21T03:07:58.892-07:002010-05-21T03:07:58.892-07:00abimer:
asked:
"How does this lead you to t...abimer:<br /> asked:<br /><br />"How does this lead you to the statement that Darwinian processes "will most probably change the DNA code system"?"<br /><br />That is exactly what random mutations will do... changing the DNA code system, not just the messages.<br /><br />If Darwinism were the processes that caused life you should actually see life forms using various code systems successfully to the same extent that you have so many different building blocks. In fact Darwinism should have achieved the same computational mechanism using a different code system, leading to the same computational outcomes. Call it fitness through multiple mutated computational mechanisms.<br /><br />Why a multiple? Because that is how code systems work. You can achieve the same computational outcome using almost any valid code system.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62965963106392007862010-05-20T17:45:28.130-07:002010-05-20T17:45:28.130-07:00Michael: Since it is clear that you are unable to ...<b>Michael</b>: <i>Since it is clear that you are unable to see the problem with this proposed state of affairs to be a mechanism capable of "code freeze" or any fundamental property of genes at all, I will end my effort. </i><br /><br />You haven't indicated any willingness to address the answer provided. Simply waving your hands is not an argument.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41740863210950733322010-05-20T14:26:35.688-07:002010-05-20T14:26:35.688-07:00Michael says: "I am very aware of the fact th...Michael says: "I am very aware of the fact that it will be catastrophic for the DNA code system to change at all during the entire proposed evolutionary period. That is my argument exactly. Your objection on the one hand shows this but on the other hand you don't show me how Darwinian processes will prevent the DNA code to change at all. That is my argument, Darwinian processes will most probably change the DNA code system, not the straw man you erected."<br /><br />I haven't a clue what you mean. I consider natural selection to be a Darwinian process. We seem to agree a change would be catestrophic - that means a catestrophic loss of fitness and no viable phenotype with any change. <br /><br />How does this lead you to the statement that Darwinian processes "will most probably change the DNA code system"?Paul McBridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953009288824698018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73149515331611955372010-05-20T14:05:36.276-07:002010-05-20T14:05:36.276-07:00Zachriel,
Your mechanism:
"Replicating popul...Zachriel,<br /><br />Your mechanism:<br />"Replicating populations competing for limited resources. This can be modeled as network evolution. See above."<br /><br />Since it is clear that you are unable to see the problem with this proposed state of affairs to be a mechanism capable of "code freeze" or any fundamental property of genes at all, I will end my effort.<br /><br />P.S. You confirm that Neo Darwinism cause very strange behavior. And it is brought about by experimental biology killing the reigning theories.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77703817922358751652010-05-20T14:01:36.990-07:002010-05-20T14:01:36.990-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48671275023371332252010-05-20T13:15:01.083-07:002010-05-20T13:15:01.083-07:00Michael: I fail to see a mechanism in your explana...<b>Michael</b>: <i>I fail to see a mechanism in your explanation above. </i><br /><br />Your poor eyesight is not an argument, but let's look at your argument again. <br /><br /><b>Michael</b>: <i>* The DNA code is universal - all species use the same 4 letter code<br />* This DNA code system had to be the same since the first form of life<br />* This implies it never changed during the proposed evolutionary period. </i><br /><br />The second step is incorrect. Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. <br /><br /><b>Michael</b>: <i>Where is the mechanism that caused the "code freeze"? </i><br /><br />Replicating populations competing for limited resources. This can be modeled as network evolution. See above.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84654888699713630542010-05-20T12:00:35.867-07:002010-05-20T12:00:35.867-07:00@ Michael:
How does one detect design?@ Michael:<br /><br />How does one detect design?second opinionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790522541732472791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27645943260117609142010-05-20T11:37:07.048-07:002010-05-20T11:37:07.048-07:00Zachriel,
I think your reasoning proofs that ther...Zachriel,<br /><br />I think your reasoning proofs that there might be some very good experimental biologists, able to analyze the intricacies of biological systems. But there is very few good theoretical biologists that can theorize valid mechanisms that caused certain features.<br /><br />The reason is not that they are stuck on naturalism or materialism, it is simply being stuck on Darwinism. ID is pure natural science for the simple reason that design detection happens only in the physical universe.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79575694673021930882010-05-20T11:27:35.585-07:002010-05-20T11:27:35.585-07:00Sorry Zachriel,
I fail to see a mechanism in your...Sorry Zachriel,<br /><br />I fail to see a mechanism in your explanation above. You simply state the current state of affairs and claim it to be a mechanism.<br /><br />Everyone knows that the DNA is actually part of a very complex coding machine that "protects" it from being changed. Unfortunately you cannot simply claim the entire genetic machinery to be the proof of the proposed mechanism that caused the "code freeze".<br /><br />Where is the mechanism that caused the "code freeze"? I know about at least one mechanism. It is called design... Why do you object to that mechanism if you cannot present your own?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7441899919803611722010-05-20T08:13:19.637-07:002010-05-20T08:13:19.637-07:00Michael: Do you have any proposed Darwinian reason...<b>Michael</b>: <i>Do you have any proposed Darwinian reason for this "Code Freeze" to be enforced? </i><br /><br />Changes to the genetic code are nearly always detrimental. <br /><br />A more general answer was provided above. In an evolving network, some relationships become established and other relationships become dependent on those established relationships. Even if it might make sense to change those established relationships, it may require simultaneously changing many other relationships. As the network continues to evolve, these established relationships become increasingly resistant to change. <br /><br />That doesn't mean they can never change, but they tend to change only tangentially. In terms of the overall network, we expect lots of small changes, a few large changes, and only the very rare revolution.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74525071686364319842010-05-20T04:40:46.697-07:002010-05-20T04:40:46.697-07:00Zachriel:
"...and then more-or-less froze in ...Zachriel:<br />"...and then more-or-less froze in place."<br /><br />Do you have any proposed Darwinian reason for this "Code Freeze" to be enforced?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76956623605060476532010-05-20T03:28:51.819-07:002010-05-20T03:28:51.819-07:00In isolation, the near universality of the genetic...In isolation, the near universality of the genetic code is not evidence of evolution. However, when combined with the rest of the phylogenetic tree, it is strong support for universal common descent. <br /><br /><b>Michael</b>: <i>* This DNA code system had to be the same since the first form of life</i><br /><br />It's more-or-less the same code since the last universal common ancestor. That's not the same as the origin of life.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15020560124790677902010-05-20T03:19:56.098-07:002010-05-20T03:19:56.098-07:00Michael: It is from these points that I conclude t...<b>Michael</b>: <i>It is from these points that I conclude that it is very unlikely since there is nothing that prevent codes from "mutating" even the DNA code. </i><br /><br />When networks of interactions evolve, certain nodes become preferentially attached. As the process continues, these nodes become more and more essential to the workings of the rest of the network. Once established, these nodes become resistant to change. That's what Crick meant by a frozen genetic code. Further optimization becomes less important as evolution proceeds through additional attachments. However, this doesn't prevent addendums to the genetic code. <br /><br />Indeed, analysis indicates that the genetic code probably couldn't have evolved all at once, but evolved from a more primitive code that was then added to over time. So, the original genetic code may have been due to stereochemical affinity, was optimized to near a local fitness peak, additional assignments were made, and then more-or-less froze in place.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33192265492099398502010-05-19T23:55:40.882-07:002010-05-19T23:55:40.882-07:00I need to ask:
Is my understanding wrong, if I re...I need to ask:<br /><br />Is my understanding wrong, if I read in this post that:<br />* The DNA code is universal - all species use the same 4 letter code<br />* This DNA code system had to be the same since the first form of life<br />* This implies it never changed during the proposed evolutionary period.<br /><br />It is from these points that I conclude that it is very unlikely since there is nothing that prevent codes from "mutating" even the DNA code. With a medium that represents 4 digits there is quite a view different code systems that can be represented.<br /><br />If I am correct then the implications should be self evident. If I am wrong then I would like to learn.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45434868194068620472010-05-19T23:14:34.780-07:002010-05-19T23:14:34.780-07:00abimer,
You contradict yourself to such an extent...abimer,<br /><br />You contradict yourself to such an extent that you should get a chance to try again...<br /><br />I am very aware of the fact that it will be catastrophic for the DNA code system to change at all during the entire proposed evolutionary period. That is my argument exactly. Your objection on the one hand shows this but on the other hand you don't show me how Darwinian processes will prevent the DNA code to change at all. That is my argument, Darwinian processes will most probably change the DNA code system, not the straw man you erected.<br /><br />Then comes the fantastic part when you end by saying the DNA code system IS subject to mutation and selection. Either you don't know the difference between a code system and the messages it is used for to represent, or you support my point that there is nothing to prevent mutation to alter the actual code system and not just the messages written in that code system.<br /><br />Hope this will help you to see your self contradicting position. But in the end you supported my argument so strongly that I have to say thank you very much.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80705267352241952572010-05-19T17:19:40.369-07:002010-05-19T17:19:40.369-07:00Michael says: "In a random environment the ch...Michael says: <i>"In a random environment the chances of a code system to remain unchanged for this long period is very small."</i><br /><br />Is it? What is that chance, and why is it very small? I wonder, because the opposite of this strawman is plainly true. If the code is changed (reassigning a tRNA), it has the cascading effect of altering every amino acid in every protein using that codon. In a metazoan, the odds that this will produce a viable individual are vanishingly small. Do you actually think that such a reassignment would be a small change that would not be subject to selection?<br /><br />I strongly suggest you read some of the literature on codon reassignment - of which there is a reasonably large base - before casually making unsubstantiated statistical claims. <br /><br /><i>"That poses problems for the mechanism of the evolutionary progress because it has to assume the code system to be completely immutable and on what basis will that claim be maid?"</i><br /><br />The code system is not immutable, and that claim is not made by any evolutionary geneticists. The code system is subject to mutation and strong selection, as evidenced by the minor differences in the mitochondrial genetic codes. Incidentally, it is the relatively high and biased mutation rate that mtDNA is subject to that is likely to be responsible for this. Again, see the literature for some interesting discussions on this e.g. <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/u579136uh826087q" rel="nofollow">Osawa and Jukes (1989)</a>.Paul McBridehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09953009288824698018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81040733937432220012010-05-19T15:48:37.422-07:002010-05-19T15:48:37.422-07:00I program automated machines and robots for living...I program automated machines and robots for living.After studying cell,DNA etc...these things look like amazing nano machines to me.<br />Any other technical people think the same?Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71823906847881382062010-05-19T15:44:05.237-07:002010-05-19T15:44:05.237-07:00"I guess my sarcasm was too subtle."
Pe..."I guess my sarcasm was too subtle."<br /><br />Perhaps, especially when creationists here and elsewhere are arguing that a designer would, in fact, design biology to make it look evolved. <br /><br />This premise is completely metaphysical, and non-falsifiable, but I guess it seems to best fit the data to them. <br /><br />Regardless, if you meant this to be a snark to the contrary, it is just a feeling based on what you think the designer might or might not do.<br /><br />If I'm wrong, what empirical method did you use, and based on what data?RobertChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15755085870566406648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29568497859630855962010-05-19T15:20:58.150-07:002010-05-19T15:20:58.150-07:00RobertC:
======
"So the designer would desig...RobertC:<br /><br />======<br />"So the designer would design biology so as to make it look like it evolved? "<br /><br />Feelings. No facts. <br />======<br /><br />I guess my sarcasm was too subtle.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59277568657578839172010-05-19T07:33:50.725-07:002010-05-19T07:33:50.725-07:00P.S
Fil,
I did not imply you personally being a ...P.S <br />Fil,<br /><br />I did not imply you personally being a naturalist / materialist. It might have been understood like that, sorry.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12218303841952833621noreply@blogger.com