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

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
There is zero concern of transcription errors or degradation in modern software systems.

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.

For any modern software system, the chance of a "transcription error" is effectively zero. I use software that was written 15 years ago. Disk drives don't last that long, and when disk drives fail... we transfer the software to a new one. We can be 100% sure that the code on the new disk is exactly the same (every byte for tens of millions of bytes are exactly the same) as the old copy... and the original copy made 15 years ago after being transferred from disk to disk dozens of times.

With modern "information transfer methods" errors are mathematically impossible. This is because they are checksummed, any error from a hardware mistake, or water damage, or poor reception... or dusty diskettes are detected and corrected.

Transcription errors aren't a part of the modern software world.

I am pushing on this to show you that this is another way that the metaphor doesn't work.

Transcription errors are a common problem in DNA with real world consequences.. They cause diseases, and they are key part of the long scale process of evolution.

There is no analogue in the modern software world.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

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

If you look at how the linkage in rna/dna occurs within developing a new germ line, the insertion of an IDer is wholly bwyond my grasp. How is this
1occuring
2evidenced

Everything you say is assertive not forensically driven.

I still think that, before you claim your "Yeomans" knowledge of microbiology, you should review a coupla texts on biochem and actually look at the moleccules and polymer chains we are actually looking at.

Polypeptide linkages merely require Phosphorus, Hydrogen, and Amine/amides.

The chemical structures can react many different ways (and do). None of the germ lines are exactly the same and thus variation is introduced and its by variability that vigor and evolution is made possible.

Weve got cloned organisms all over and, in most cases wherever they are articially varied, they will go extinct .LOOK at Cavendish Bananas.

I think e are getting lost in trying to sound astute hen we oughta be talking reality here.

How is evolution through geographic isolation made viable by ID, what makes it go ?

your attempetd argument ( I will give you this) can be made at the dawn of creation, after that, your hypothesis becomes theistic evolution.
The evidence exists in growing mounds that a mechanism as simple as adaptive evolution goes many different ways in the path of life.
Is there any way you can clearly state that ID has any effect in directing it? I think not.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

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

and youve not really mde a decent case . But you are doing nicely by your passive aggressive style.
If youre frustrated because folks disagree with you then try to focus in pn the issue of "how can I prove my point"?

I would welcome that

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Farmerman and I seem to disagree with each other on whether this is a biology thread, or a software thread. Wink

It is like we are discussing two completely unrelated topics.

... I guess that is the point.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Im stickin with the analogy that Lead foots dearly wanted to make

HOW DOES MY COMPUTER CRETE NEW INFORMATION??
Say my hydrogeological models of fluid flow need some major math input so Ican do a hybrid model, how can th software do that without me inteceding?
Thats Lead's whole script

ONCE THERE"S SOFTWARE< ANY CHANGES HAVE TO BE MADE EXTRA FRAMEWORK"

I think we all see where he going and not wanting to give any ground.

BTW, evolution IS mostly biochem and the DNA and math roles are merely the bookkeeping. (I agree with Gould). So many new occurences have happened through time that an IDers intecession would require him to be ON CALL nights and weekends.
Im not buying any of it because hes wagging the dog with the information contained within the mitochondria and epigenes. Its like his entire evolution smacks of NO FREE WILL guys!! Thats too juch religion.
Im interested in understanding the changes occuring in germ lins (Like the gentic "magic" weve seen in GULO genes and their reaction to envionments adaptations)

He thinks that we deny that its about INFORMATION or NUMBERS .I say its about what controls this information (or my numbers or letters)

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

error from a hardware mistake, or water damage, or poor reception... or dusty diskettes are detected and corrected.

So errors do happen but you developed tools to control them. Life (to my knowledge) doesn't have these tools for checking the accuracy of transcriptions. But transcription of DNA code does happen all the time, with the occasional error.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

If you are going to write this up as a paper to present somewhere (like a computer conf I imagine)
I think you should start by stating the two different ways that you feel are the points of your disagreement with evolutionary biology. I think you should summarize what you feel biology says and then, what you say.
If youve queried real biologists and theyve added something important about the interpretation of a genetic code that makes it more closely associated with software (thereby introducing ID) but not "free range" linking of the codons, before, during or after the phenotype emerges. I think that could be your introduction. HOWEVER , Dont never start a tech paper with
'HERES MY POINT as stated in my title, I BELIEVE ITS A FACT, tell me where you disagree"

I find that Ive always gotten deeper into an issue by seeking commonality first, then the divergence in the two lines will appear . Usually the lines of a disagreement are best understood nd solved by seeing where we agree first, not calling for a bar brawl.
Cuz, guar en my tee , if you present a paper based on how youve begun this thread you will come off the dias crying. Scientists are cruel when it comes to pet areas of research.

I dont say Im not open to stuff like pangenesis because I really need to have looked into all nooks and crannies of evidence and as my new postmark implies, "we only know what we dont know in today's arena, we may discover something tomorrow that voids anything we think we know now"

Im not telling you how to begin your paper, If it gets accepted, the owners of enough pairs of eyes will tell you that

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I think you should start by stating the two different ways that you feel are the points of your disagreement with evolutionary biology.

farmerman wrote:

BTW, evolution IS mostly biochem

Is it ****. I had to study the eye for Biology and for Physics, but not for Chemistry. And that's because Chemistry has **** all to do with either Biology or Physics, it's out there on its own, doing its own ****.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

did you see the front that said BIO chem???

Whether you agree or not is immaterial ,because genes are MOLECULES .

Modern microbiology is loaded with chem, biochem is the chemistry of organism functions, and molecular biology is also.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Chemistry has **** all to do with either Biology or Physics, it's out there on its own, doing its own ****.

had a bad day? youre sounding a bit annoyed at everything.

0 Replies

When I was getting a Physics degree, we all understood that Chemistry is just a branch of Physics. I suppose you could argue that Biology is really just a branch of Chemistry.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

It's cells mate, it's organic. There's no jars of chemicals, test tubes or bunsen burners is there?

I've had a lovely day, I took the nipper to Chessington World of Adventures.

https://www.chessington.com/images/uploads/attractions/940/grra.jpg

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

whatever dude it aint worth my time to explain the obvious

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You could also argue that Biology is far more than Chemistry. That it brings something radically new to the table. The capacity to self-reproduce, for a start. Chemicals don't do that on their own.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I bet those long winter evenings just whizz by.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
“the DNA is not used as building material, but only as blueprint. This is of course true of computer software.”

Olivier replied:
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...

So many errors in a single sentence!

You haven’t even parsed the clear meaning in my statement or the context it was used in. You answer affirms what I said. That was the very point I was making in the response to ros who insisted that the hardware of the cell and software (DNA) were not separate things.

Of course they are separate things which you agree with here. The DNA (in the form of mRNA) runs on the hardware (ribosomes, etc) which are physically and functionally separate from DNA. The DNA is the 'blueprint' which is just another word for software here.

But you are again wrong because the DNA is The blueprint for building the hardware it runs on and of course that includes the building a duplicate of itself. Note that it directs the building not do the building itself.

This is one difference between computer software and DNA. Computers are not currently able to make copies of themselves. But that too is possible. A PC today could run an automated production line building copies of itself. Hell, for all I know that’s already happening.

So this 'metaphor' is far from reaching its limits.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

I'll cut through the noise and get straight to the message:

Quote:

Note that [DNA] directs the building not do the building itself

The system also cares for, edits, manipulates, divides and generally currates its DNA so it's a two-way street.

Quote:

A PC today could run an automated production line building copies of itself.

Call me up when a computer can do something like this:

https://media3.giphy.com/media/63Q1xdUbPGAH6/source.gif

1 Reply

This thread just gets more and more bizarre . . .

Help, I'm steppin' into the Twilight Zone
Place is a madhouse, feels like being cloned
My beacon's been moved under moon and star
Where am I to go now that I've gone too far?

Soon you will come to know
When the bullet hits the bone

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:

“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”

Farmer replied:
If you look at how the linkage in rna/dna occurs within developing a new germ line, the insertion of an IDer is wholly bwyond my grasp. How is this
1occuring
2evidenced

Everything you say is assertive not forensically driven.

I still think that, before you claim your "Yeomans" knowledge of microbiology, you should review a coupla texts on biochem and actually look at the moleccules and polymer chains we are actually looking at.

Polypeptide linkages merely require Phosphorus, Hydrogen, and Amine/amides.

Did you read the part were I asked for a single point that I’ve made here that you disagree with?

The OP and all my points are about a totally different subject that the other things in your post. I know you want to talk about God and creationism but that’s not what this is about.

You made the blanket statement that all my points are merely assertions with no foundation. I thought that foundation was already clear in the science of genetics.
I'll say this clearly (to all)-

Anyone who does not know why there is a solid basis for making the DNA to software comparison, is not knowledgeable enough to even have an opinion about the OP. If that insults anyone, tough ****. Either ignore this or bring your facts to the table, I’m tired of whiners demanding to know the programmer. Take your philosophical hangups elsewhere.

I read your advice about titling papers. Of course I agree, starting out with a confrontation is not the way. But this is a debate format, you always start out with diametrically opposed positions. I would add that I assumed there were far more people who knew the software - DNA similarities already. The science literature is so full of (inadvertent) comparisons.

I had hoped to get more factual arguments against it to address in the paper. I haven’t succeeded there but this has been a great help with the other factor I hope to cover - that being what the psychological factors preventing people from seeing it are. (I can hear the groans already : )

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The system also cares for, edits, manipulates, divides and generally currates its DNA so it's a two-way street.

The only sense in which this is true is the 'curration'. The systems calls for and copies a specific portion of the code when needed (just like in computer software).

It translates the copied code (just like in a computer) but it makes absolutely no changes to the original copy. It does not do any of the other things you mentioned. If you have an exception, I’d be interested.

Thanks for staying factual though.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know