Biological organisms are [i]primarily[/i] Software Defined Lifeforms. - Yes or No?

@Leadfoot,

"symbolic language" is completely redundant. All languages are symbols. Sounds fancy, though.

How do you define language? Does it have to convey meaning? What kind of meaning? Or can it be purely syntactical?

"Encoded on any substrate" is pretty silly, too. Substrates don't actually do anything; they just provide a platform.

By the definition you provided here, it seems like a maze for a rat could be considered software.

After all, the walls get encoded as symbols interpreted by the rat's brain, they're placed on a locomotive substrate that the rat walks on, and it controls the locomotive function of the rat.

But a rat's maze is not software.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

An enzyme doesn't need anyone to tell her what to do.

In contrast, no computer software in existence is capable of reparing the hardware it runs on, which is what DNA does, day and night...

An enzyme is not a cell. Individual circuits in computer still work after the software has crashed, just like enzymes in a cell will work (for awhile) if the DNA were to 'crash'. Yet another similarity!

And yes, as you say, DNA is quite capable. And As Bill Gates said, DNA is far more advanced than any software we have created. I can’t figure out why you and others see that sophistication as evidence of a random process.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

So your computer keeps computing without a software, huh? Good for you. I'm starting to wonder if you're not a computer yourself...

0 Replies

There is value in this pathetic attempt at a metaphor, other than to allege an intelligence behind life on this planet. This is just the typical dishonesty of the god squad.

1 Reply

While we're at it, Mr. Foot, can you also tell me what you understand the meaning of "software defined" to be?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

There is value in this pathetic attempt at a metaphor, other than to allege an intelligence behind life on this planet. This is just the typical dishonesty of the god squad.

Don't discount the humor/entertainment value.

I'm periodically amused by word-salad bullshit technobabble.

0 Replies

I wanted to get him into a discussion of intermolecular versus interionic chemical bonds, but I couldn't figure out a way to introduce it.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

While we're at it, Mr. Foot, can you also tell me what you understand the meaning of "software defined" to be?

Good question. The phrase hit me while messing with a cheap ($25) USB dongle for my computer that couples all the signals and noise from an antenna into a serial bit stream fed to the computer. An free app on the PC called a Software Defined Radio is able to sort through this data stream and separate and play the audio on any of the radio signals on the antenna, and do it better than receivers costing thousands of dollars.

That a computer could 'evolve' via software alone to do such a 'foreign' thing got me thinking about the obvious comparison to biology. What is called our earliest ancestor, (the first cell) had the same architecture as it is today. There has been no real 'evolution' of it. There was no need for that architecture to change because its design was such that its only limitation was the contents of the DNA.

I’m not sure which to be more impressed with, the hardware design or the software.

Anyway, that’s where the 'software defined' term came from.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Ah.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

That was great Smile

0 Replies

The original ancestors of life on earth were the archaea. They had no nucleus in their cells (and still don't to this day). The "architecture" of the archaea has changed radically in the subsequent forms--bacteria and eukaryotes. This is the problem of this thread--the author appears to know little or nothing about biology or chemistry.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

That is an assumption. Archaea are alive today, as farmer pointed out. There is no proof which or what came first. Archaea may have come from early cells. Same story with viruses. Archaea may have been first but we only assume that because of their relative simplicity.

That is irrelevant anyway because although they do not have a nucleus, they do have genes, and the same software as other cells, even if in the form of RNA. They have transcriptase proteins and perform the same functions as DNA in other cells. The hardware is functionally the same. Otherwise, why would you think it was them who were our first ancestors? They may well be, but that changes nothing about the premise of Software Defined Lifeforms. Archaea are no less examples of that than eukaryotes or prokaryotes.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

That's OK Drew, biology terms sound like jiberish to everyone at first. Let me know if you need help with any and I’ll make sure you don’t fall too far behind.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

As has been the case throughout this farce, you have not demonstrated that "software" is a plausible term to use in describing biological processes. The archaea are undoubtedly the oldest form of life, and the evidence is much stronger than the goofy speculation underlying this thread.

Quote:

The Archaea comprise a group of single-celled microorganisms that, like bacteria, are prokaryotes that have no cell nucleus or any other organelles within their cells. Consequently, they were once considered to be an unusual group of bacteria and named archaebacteria. However, it in now known that Archaeans have an independent evolutionary history and have numerous differences in their biochemistry compared to other forms of life. The differences are so great that they are now classified as a distinctly separate domain in the three-domain system. Carl Woese introduced the three main branches of evolutionary descent as the Archaea, Eukaryota and Bacteria. Classifying Archaea remains difficult, since the vast majority of these organisms have never been studied in the laboratory and have only been detected by analysis of their nucleic acids in environmental samples.

Source

You have provided zero evidence for your claims in this thread, and you have consistently conflated software with chemical processes without the least justification.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

First you say Archaea are our earliest ancestors now you show that they have a separate independent history and are unrelated to us. Thus, you are supporting my contention that it was the first cell of the type (eukaryotic) that we inherited this DNA /software defined architecture from. Get your story straight Set. Your dogma does not negate the current scientific opinion that we do not know the origin of life. You are a science denier on this point.

It’s irrelevant anyway. The OP concerns biological life as we see it today.

As for your contention that I have provided no evidence of the software nature of DNA, I don’t have to. The science of genetics has more of it than necessary. I’ve only quoted accepted biological facts.
Furthermore, you have not been able to refute a single point I’ve made, you and others simply resort to insult and anti theistic rhetoric. You’ve got no fist in your glove.

1 Reply

I would urge anyone in doubt about the comparison of DNA with software to read the basic intro to cellular biology here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)

It is a very interesting read if you have any interest in the subject. The Wiki entry discusses it in biological terms of course but if you have even the most basic understanding of computers and software I don’t see how anyone could fail to see the parallels.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

"'code of life" v "software " is just a convenience for using plain english to teach students. As you get deeper into the statemment you find that the comparisons are fraught with how stoppers

Ive just returned from the "angry seas"(George Castanza). Did you manage to return a comment I made last week before we left about computer "Software" doesnt seem to be able turn a refrigerator into a toaster without some kind of ingenuity behind it. SO is that the entire point of your forced comparison? Evidence is the key for any kind of valid comparison , doncha think?

It all boils down to ID versus science doesnt it?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Hope you get your land legs back soon.

Quote:

'code of life" v "software " is just a convenience for using plain english to teach students.

. I agree, but only because the concepts and conventions of software were not in wide use until fairly recently. I’m saying that it is time we recognized the genetic code for what it is - software more highly advanced than anything we’ve written, but obviously of the same concept.

Quote:

As you get deeper into the statemment you find that the comparisons are fraught with how stoppers

Those are what I’m looking for. So far no one has come up with any.

Quote:

Did you manage to return a comment I made last week before we left about computer "Software" doesnt seem to be able turn a refrigerator into a toaster without some kind of ingenuity behind it.

But that’s my point, software is able to do just that. I earlier used an example of an app that turns my PC into a very sophisticated radio when a minute before it was a word processor. The app is called a Software Defined Radio, which I was explaining to DrewDad who asked where the term 'software defined' came from. It’s the biological equivalent of turning a T Rex into a chicken, which we are told is exactly what DNA did. By random changes no less.

Quote:

It all boils down to ID versus science doesnt it?

Off topic, but No. You attempt to frame it that way by claiming that the scientific method cannot be applied to something you are philosophically opposed to (a rather unscientific attitude).

Take an example of something that we both (?) agree on - that Tarot cards are not able to predict anything better than a guess. The scientific method could be used to prove that as either true or false, regardless of the fact that we both know that there is nothing scientific about those cards. The scientific falsification of Tarot card accuracy cannot be done by saying 'I don’t believe in the supernatural.' You have to do the investigation with scientific rigor if you are to be taken seriously.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, I am using the scientific method to look at the design hypothesis in biological life.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Your inability to understand the material at the linked source is not evidence of any error on my part. My "story" is straight, you're the one who's all over the map. The origin of life is not relevant, although I'm not surprised to see you attempting, once again, to move the goal posts.

You've made a claim, and those who make claims are obliged to support them. You have failed to support your claim in this thread.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

You have failed to support your claim in this thread.

No I haven’t.

Now it’s your turn to say 'Yes you have!'. (again)

0 Replies

Biological organisms are [i]primarily[/i] Software Defined Lifeforms. - Yes or No?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know