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

I suspect you don't actually know what the word metaphor means--a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. That's number one. Number two is that you keep moving the goal posts--thwarted in an attempt to establish your analogy in one sense, you just change your definitions, or say that you weren't talking about that. Once again, you make a claim, you havfe the burden of proof--no one is obliged to disprove your claim. You have provided zero evidence that your attempt at an analogy is substantiated.

As for your previous post, any arrangement of chemicals which does not produce replicable molecules, any array of DNA which does encode a viable and more importantly a reproductively viable organism simply fails. That's what natural selection means. It appears that you don't understand that aspect of evolution.

You have been told since the beginning of this thread that DNA is not the same as software because DNA is, in fact, hardware. You're the one who only says "No, you're wrong."

Oh, and don't feed me that "philosophical" bullsh*t. You have marshaled zero scientific support for your silly analogy.

Not sure why you would say that. But let me see if we are in agreement.
That might be right in one sense. But I don’t think it is in the way you mean it.

If by molecular structure you mean 'the precise arrangement of the nucleotides' as Crick put it, that’s true. But if you mean it is the chemical properties of the nucleotides themselves which determined that arrangement, I’m going to call Total Bullshit. In a strand of DNA, there is nothing about the four different nucleotide bases Thymine, Cytosine, Adenine, or Guanine (or Uracil when it replaces Thymine in RNA) that will make them line up in the order to symbolically code for a protein.

Prove me wrong on this and I’ll go home.

I have no idea what that last paragraph was trying to represent but yes its Bullshit and I didnt say that.
Consider STR's , microsatellite genes.Once a gene duplicates, its able to to separate in its sequence from its partner and, therefore, tandem repeats may play an important role in evolution. ... Nevertheless, despite the usefulness of certain tandem duplications, most tandem-repeated DNA sequences are in noncoding DNA(intron positions) with no known function. They become great repeating markers of totally different DNA components from its alleles and therefore we use it alot in determining where Haplotypes originate on the map. Same **** different molecules that get repeated over and over and preserved in the genetic "alarm Clock".

We can tell several populations of Amerinds or meso-Americans (or cichlid fish by their STR's).

Also, think about pseudogenes that accumulate mutations even after being turned "off" ,Or restriction fragment length polymophisms (RLFP's) that evidence "clipping" of specific genes and thus doing so, identify a symptom of a disease that even by doing so , has nothing to do with that genes position or function. Was Steve Gould right that genes are merely "bookkeeping of evolution"??

This thread just popped back up to my home screen... I have one question

Why the Hell is this thread still going on?

No one is buying what Leadfoot is selling, and he ain't moving from his position. It doesn't seem like anything new has been said in the past few pages. Not that it really is my business... but really?

I think you're being a bit unfair to Leadfoot here. He told us that his computer could operate without a software. Isn't it at least conceivable that his own computer may be running without a software? And that may be why his posts make no sense at all: because they come out all garbled from his software-free computer... ;-)

Lol.

Yup, and people newly exposed to terminology will misuse it.

"Software defined" is not a good term; folks in my industry have been complaining about it since VMware popularized the term a few years ago.

"Software managed" or "software controlled" or "software directed" or "software governed" would all be better terms.

Typically, though, software-defined anything means a control system that can be interacted with via an API. I'm not aware of any biological organism that has an API, so....

hey, Ive been piloting a boat for the last week and just got back on Saturday. So please allow me some fun. You guys have shredded his assertions based on puter speek. I want him to understand a bit of simple ass chemistry and biochem. (Is Izzy the wanker still insisting that biochemistry doesnt exist?)

sometimes my laptop takes a run for the gate in order to escape. In those times it starts generating (In bio speak) random recombinant alleles. Most of the time though, they stop on "Do you want Firefox as your default browser"??

Must be because you're not watering it enough. Also make sure it eats its silicone, and not just the chips! Otherwise it won't be able to repair itself automatically anymore...

No. Medical, Agricultural, Pharmaceutical, Paleontology, etc.

Knowledge of evolution is used in the medical field every day, particularly when it comes to bacterial resistance, flu vaccines and genetic conditions like Huntingtons. Knowledge of evolution in agriculture helps protect against blights, famine and pest infestations, and ultimately feeds many more people than could otherwise be achieved by without this knowledge. And the discovery of Tiktaalik was driven almost entirely by our understanding of evolution and geology. Neil Shubin covered this in detail in his "Discovering your Inner Fish" series which describes exactly how they managed to find (and confirm) the transition animal implied by the theory.

I could provide you with references, but it's all pretty easy to find on Google. If you really want to understand then I'm sure you can find it. If you do google it and you can't differentiate the bullshit out there from the facts then let me know and I'll be happy to help you separate them.

@farmer et al

Quit dodging farmer. Explain what you do mean by this and stop responding with irrelevant remarks.

And the pathetic bleating about how my arguments have been 'shreaded' is laughable (along with Max's contention that I haven’t made any).
Oh, max, so sorry you have to tolerate the outrage of having your dogmas questioned.

In this thread I have made numerous factual statements about both software and the biology of DNA and arguments why they are comparable. I have asked that if anyone can refute any one of the arguments I presented to do so and I’d discuss it at length.

I have offered to go step by step why DNA acts in the same way as software in a computer, but you ignored the offer. At least you admitted you don’t know enough about computers and software now to see the comparison. But you’re quick to say they aren’t comparable anyway. Go figure.

But the thing I want you (farmer) to explain most of all is what you mean in the quote above. That is the key point here.

I have proven to you that DNA acts in a very different manner as software in a computer, but you ignored the demonstration...

None of this requires the theory of evolution.

Evolution is not the topic here but I’ll indulge you anyway.

Other than tracing the possible ancestry of an organism, Evolution is not a factor in your examples. Mutation is a different story. Cancer is a mutation. Birth defects are a result of mutations. So of course medical research looks at mutations. Same with the other fields. It makes not a whit of difference whether the theory of evolution is true or not.

The medical researcher looks at what is in front of him. It would not matter if a cosmic ray was responsible for the genetic change he studies or 'Goddidit'. How the **** could anyone tell? With one possible trivial example, we have never directly observed a mutation cause added functions, and it has not been for lack of trying. We have seen them cause problems like cancer and birth defects.

Mutation and Evolution are two entirely different things. The idea that mutations are responsible for evolution is only a theory. It remains to be seen whether random mutations are a plausible source of DNA/software improvements, let alone be the origin.

Would you be so kind as to point it out to me? I don’t recall any argument you made that I did not respond to.

In the future I will only be responding to posts with factual arguments. I’ll ignore ones like this saying only 'I proved you wrong' .

It was about red blood cells, and how DNA is not an operating system but a maintenance system, something which software is most definitely not. But you didn't pay attention the first time around so why would you now?

Thanks for the repeat. You’re right, I didn’t respond to that.

I didn’t see it as saying anything that was not obvious. And I agree, DNA is a maintainaince system, but I see no difference between that and an operating system (which also incorporates a maintenance system). What is being maintained is the homeostasis of the cell, it’s life. It is necessarily a continuous operation.

It is not just for 'repair' either. There are literally hundreds of other normal operations vitally necessary for the cells continued operation, not to mention replacing itself when it's life is over. Even if the cell is undamaged it would immediately die if the DNA software stopped operating. Do you deny this?

Re: RBCs
Just because there is a specialized cell (RBC) without DNA , that does not negate the fact that DNA is software in other cells. Let me know if I’m missing your point about red blood cells.

But to return to the software paradigm of DNA, the operating system of a computer is also a maintenance system. It is constantly doing house cleaning behind the scenes, returning memory from subroutines no longer needed, responding to interrupts from internal timers and I/O channels, checking for read errors in memory, checking for computer viruses and a hundred other things if you were interested.
There are analogous operations going on in the cell. Again, you have pointed out how DNA biology is literally like a computer operating system.

Can you further define the difference you mean between maintenance system and an operating system, and why it is not like a software operating system?

Of course I deny such a blatant lie... A cell can operate for a few days without DNA. That's the whole point I am making: DNA isn't an operating system, it's a maintainance system. Something which software isn't.

I do feed it the silicon chips. It likes the cool ranch ones.