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

The real issue here is that modern science has, in the view of most scientists, eliminated the need for a creator. Evolution shows that life can develop, differentiate itself and adapt without any guidance. Modern astronomy shows that heavenly bodies follow their set paths and lifecycles according to a set of rules, no input needed.

It is possible that some creator set up a the rules in the beginning and then just butt out twiddling its devine metaphorical thumbs for the rest of a eternity, but that would be a very sad narrative indeed.

After the Big Bang, there is very little for a creator to do. Sure, there is plenty that we don't know... but from the things we do know there is really no need for a Creator any more.

This doesn't prove that there isn't some Deity that set things in motion. But, there is nothing to indicate that the Universe can't just do its thing on its own.

Not at all, the rules were talked about on the evolution thread. Don’t bust my balls, this ain’t Roberts Rules we got going on the Internet.

Anybody can say any fool thing they want here and nobody gonna stop them. They just can’t back it up and that will be obvious to anyone perceptive enough to see reason.
If they can’t do that, not my concern.

The glitzy sexy halftime show by Max was pretty awesome though.

the"rules" weren agreed upon. I hve a bit of a mod, mostly because puter talk confuses me because of theway puter talk sounds like english.

HOW BOUT using thealphqbet and worfs. Since the English alphabet is 26 letters ( see where Im going?). we can set the rules about the genetic code that more is like the English language
eg
Theres NO punctuation except stop codons ( we Call it a period)

codons can be small to large groupings of 3 amino acids forming these molecular chains.

the genetic code, like lingo, is degenerate(That implies that there are many ways to sy the same thing (weigh,way,whey etc etc)

I can better traipse on the issue of "design" wrt to language than I can in puter geek talk, ( in which Im a user not a designer an Id hve to bring in my IT guy who knows NOTHING about evolution.)
We should seek commonality, rather than hiding behind jargon (I know, you accuse me of that but Im trying to span the aisles in this discussion)


If yes, Ill hppily join in and spend time being more a techy stop with several others . I think Monterey Jqck IS a microbiologist or geneticist if Im not mistaken. So we should try to mix this up rather than trying to do a debate wherein one guy sets the language rules.

Actually, that's NOT true of software, which RUNS on hardware but cannot BUILD the hardware it runs on or serve as a blueprint for it.

I told you metaphors had limits...

DNA isn’t trying to “write” code. All it is doing is accumulating bits which replicate more frequently within its local surroundings. That’s a chemical process. Replication, Variation and Selection, that’s all it takes. Stop trying to rationalize everything to fit your conclusion and it will all become clear to you.

No one is obliged to read what passes for a mind in your skull and then run around to other threads to find out what the ground rules are for a newly started discussion.



You need to have that tattooed on your forearm so that you can read it every time you get ready to type something online. That's an indictemnt of this entire, idiotic thread.

I'm game for a more science-based discussion of these issues, ie the limits of evolution theory, or abiogenesis. I don't think Leadfoot is arguing in good faith, and the other anti-evolution folks here are just wackos. I did study genetics, population genetics, biochemistry and the likes so in all modesty I think i can bring something to the table.

I came to this thread based on the word "Software" which I have shown is a pretty horrible metaphor for DNA.

Abiogenesis, if it was akin to software, I suppose would be akin to writing a compiler, and then butting out. The process of random mutation and mating behavior that is used to generate new sequences of DNA has nothing in common with programming.

I usually don't find discussions of Abiogenesis to be very interesting. Parser Generators (which are part of developing a compiler for a computer language) are very exciting.

great. I think if e just get away from this forced "bar code" talk and recall that we can give any of the amino acids a letter or a number, their "puter software" bent goes awya a bit
Math is math and we still use population genetics and even old expression math.
i too feel that we are being "set up" to discuss ID in a fashion that has conferred some puter talk by our pssive agreement.

I would like to see more participants also and so weve got several with more genetics larnin than I so the ID world has to present its data that is more than developing an analogy to machine language.

Farmer's comment is in the middle of the response range so far (from 'you’re so full of ****' to 'I don’t see what you're point is' to 'stop trying to ram God down my throat!')

So, this reply is addressed to all since I’m the only one on the affirmative side so far.

Farmer's comment points out what I’m guessing is the main cause of the disconnect here. Maybe I am the only one here that is knowledgeable about both of the fields we are comparing. It would be pointless to try and convince anyone who wasn’t familiar with both that they are just alike. I was thinking there were more people around who knew both well enough to discuss the comparison.

I do want to point out that in spite of the fact that several have said or implied that I haven’t made a single point in the argument, I have countered, (or used) , every argument made so far and the only rebuttal that I received was either a repetition of the argument or 'tell me who the programmer is'. Sorry, that’s just intellectual cowardice if you are sincere in arguing the OP question.

If you disagree with my conclusion here, bring up one specific point or argument that you believe I’m in error on and I’d be happy to engage the point.

To those who discount me or my arguments based on their philosophical, religious or anti religious hangups, **** you. But I’ll still listen to your arguments for any actual content and judge it according to its merits.

DNA is a form of code, there's no doubt about that. As you pointed out, it gets written in rather bizarre ways but it's still code. The problem with the software metaphor is that DNA is also hardware, and the proteins it codes for are also a form of software, more often than not. So the dychotomy between hardware and software is more murky in living beings than in computers.

We know very little so there's only so much one can say on abiogenesis. It's the biggest mystery in the universe, if you ask me. I'm of the opinion that life have come from elsewhere than earth.

This is a matter of how you define "code". Is a recipe in a cookbook a form of code? Are random impurities in granite that will dictate the path of future river a form of code? Are gravitational fields that dictate the path of asteroids a form of code?

Anything can be a form of "code" if you define it that way. Arguing over the definition of words never seems too interesting, but I will play.

Tell me your definition for the word "code", and let's see what else fits.

You're not paying attention to what people tell you.

If you knew anything about software, you would know that computer software doesn't usually include code about how to build and maintain the hardware it runs on.

It's a code because you can accurately and consistently translate/transcribe it into some other code (RNA, and then proteins). There's no doubt about that. The only question is about how it got coded. Evolution does not point towards an ID though, it's too messy and random for that. But can code emerge naturally? IDK.

Maybe we have different ideas about what the words "accurately" and "consistently" mean? My kids have quite different DNA than I do. DNA is not transferred accurately, RNA often makes mistakes. And even on an individual basis, my own DNA degrades every year.

When I transfer my software to another computer, it runs the same and behaves the same. I don't see any parallel.

and when your puter gives up the ghost, it requires you to intercede to transfer the exact data to another one, life doesnt get an intercessor, just two willing partners to create gametes by mingling different germ lines.

I would guess that your kids have different DNA than you do because they were produced through sexual reproduction, which mixes codes randomly. If your kids had been produced via cloning, they'd look a lot more like you.

Transcription mistakes and degradation through time happen with other types of code, including with computer code.

There must be something valid in the comparison. See for instance the existence of computer viruses, which modus operandi is very close to that of live viruses.

This is factually incorrect with computer code. There is zero concern of transcription errors or degradation in modern software systems. With backups and checksums this is not relevant.

To me, metaphors are illustrative, they provoke ideas. They are not demonstrations. We say: comparison n'est pas raison, don't know if that translates.

If all you expect from a metaphor is some inspiration, the computer code metaphor is as good as any other. Of course it'd be very simplistic and naive to think that life is literally a code and only a code, or to say that because computer code gets written by coders, therefore the genetic code was necessarily written by some gods.

It depends on how well protected and solid is your hardware, and how robust is your information transfer method. It was quite easy in the past to get diskettes becoming "non-readable" because of dust. Computers exposed to water can behave a bit bizarrely. Cell-phones can get poor reception. etc.