Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[Guy Threepwood]

But you've go two layers going on in your "Quick brown fox" analogy. You've got a string of symbols--information. And, you've got a meaningful message coded into them which is absent from DNA.

The fact that the animal in question is in fact quick, brown, and .. a fox, is specifically coded where? in it's DNA

Yes, it is possible to encode meaningful content into a DNA molecule. So what?

and we can, hypothetically, alter that digital code which describes a fox, to describe a different animal, or even a movie...

 

[pitabread]

I did; the quaternary code in this case is stored in chemical nucleotide bases

Okay, so now what? What do we do with this definition?

the whole point is that analogies and mediums don't matter- it is a digital code convention whether you care or not

The issue is equivocation. Words like "code" have different meaning depending on context.

That you are saying that the analogies and mediums don't matter is the issue here. They do matter because the nature and functionals are fundamentally different when comparing DNA, computer code, written language, space alien signals, etc.

Point being again, it would make no difference if you forbade the language, the substance of the digital information system remains there for all to see

If this were true, then why are you having so much difficulty defining it without immediately resorting to analogies?

If you think DNA is a "digital information system", then describe how that "digital information system" works with respect to how DNA works. Can you do that?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, it is possible to encode meaningful content into a DNA molecule. So what?

Okay, so now what? What do we do with this definition?



The issue is equivocation. Words like "code" have different meaning depending on context.

That you are saying that the analogies and mediums don't matter is the issue here. They do matter because the nature and functionals are fundamentally different when comparing DNA, computer code, written language, space alien signals, etc.

As above, they are in fact so similar in inherent design and function, that DNA can be used in computing for potentially anything we already do with silicon

 

[pitabread]

As above, they are in fact so similar, that DNA can be used in computing for potentially anything we already do with silicon

Describe how DNA and silicone chips are similar in terms of functional processes.

IOW, how does each of them actually work?

 

[Speedwell]

The fact that the animal in question is in fact quick, brown, and .. a fox, is specifically coded where? in it's DNA



and we can, hypothetically, alter that digital code which describes a fox, to describe a different animal, or even a movie...

No, the "information" which produces a fox is not an encoded message. That's where your analogy breaks down.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you think DNA is a "digital information system", then describe how that "digital information system" works with respect to how DNA works. Can you do that?

The word 'digital' should not be confused with a mere analogy here. Information can be stored in digital or analogue (eg radio) form. In this case DNA is NOT an analogue information system, it is very much a digital system because it uses specific individual code characters as opposed to waveforms- which are stored on nucleotide base pairs (again not controversial at all)

reading up on DNA computing could answer a lot more questions, but it simply uses a different medium to do the same thing, process digital information.

This includes error checking using a parity bit strategy as already discussed, it uses what might be called 'headers' but in biology are called 'primers' which act as short leading segments of code to identify 'packets' of information, and Telomeres act as 'buffers' to separate different parts of the code.

The similarities are many, but this all strays from the more substantive point, which is that both systems store information digitally which is used to specify something else beyond itself.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, the "information" which produces a fox is not an encoded message. That's where your analogy breaks down.

the information which describes a fox is coded in it's DNA, absolutely

 

[pitabread]

reading up on DNA computing could answer a lot more questions, but it simply uses a different medium to do the same thing, process digital information.

I'm asking you though because you're making the claims here. I'm curious if you can support these claims.

This includes error checking using a parity bit strategy as already discussed

We've been through this before. DNA does not anything resembling parity bit checking in the way it is used in computing.

Parity bit checking in computing involves performing mathematical computations. No such computations are performed by DNA in that respect.

While DNA does include error checking/correction mechanisms, the functional processes are completely different.

it uses what might be called 'headers' but in biology are called 'primers' which act as short leading segments of code to identify 'packets' of information, and Telomeres act as 'buffers' to separate different parts of the code.

Please describe what each of those things are and how they function.

Let's see how similar they are.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Describe how DNA and silicone chips are similar in terms of functional processes.

IOW, how does each of them actually work?

I'd say the most fundamental difference is that silicone utilizes electrical signals where DNA uses chemical processes. Again no argument that the hardware medium is different-

just as both an abacus and a LCD calculator can perform the same functions using entirely different mediums, but both are clearly designed to perform the same functions

similarities in hardware are not what I am pointing out, but similarities in digital software architecture.
That said, i would say biological hardware in itself is a very good argument for it's creative design- but a different argument

 

[pitabread]

similarities in hardware are not what I am pointing out, but similarities in digital software architecture.

Then explain the similarities.

 

[Speedwell]

the information which describes a fox is coded in it's DNA, absolutely

But not as a message.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm asking you though because you're making the claims here. I'm curious if you can support these claims.

I'm claiming DNA carries information using a digital v analogue medium, according to a symbolic code convention- this can be supported quite plainly in genetic engineering- altering specific parts of the code will have the same effect in different individuals.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm claiming DNA carries information using a digital v analogue medium, according to a symbolic code convention- this can be supported quite plainly in genetic engineering- altering specific parts of the code will have the same effect in different individuals.

DNA is information--or can be characterized as such, anyway.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But not as a message.

actually the transcription process involves what is called messenger RNA because it carries information to be read in the Ribosome.

Again we can debate semantics all day- if you want to lobby for having the terminology 'messenger RNA' changed to something else- that's not changing the actual substance of what is going on in DNA, digital information processing- including sending/receiving of digital messages, replication and error checking.

 

[pitabread]

I'm claiming

I know what you are claiming. You're repeating yourself in every single post.

What I'm interested in is whether you can support your claims.

So let's go back to this claim of yours:

it uses what might be called 'headers' but in biology are called 'primers' which act as short leading segments of code to identify 'packets' of information, and Telomeres act as 'buffers' to separate different parts of the code.
​

Explain what these things are and how they function. Let's see how similar they are.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then explain the similarities.

as before

Digital: this means using individual code symbols as opposed to analogue wave forms
Hierarchical: meaning information is organized in a hierarchy where key segments of information (e.g. Hox genes which are in turn a subset of homeobox genes/ gene regulatory network) control how other genetic code lower in the hierarchy is applied.

Just as clicking 'post reply' will control many further actions lower in the hierarchy/ beneath the GUI/ graphic user interface

symbolic code convention: meaning that information is transcribed, applied and triggers responses according to a shared convention across individuals and throughout the DNA system.

^within just this I believe there is enough evidence to make creative intelligence the less improbable explanation- the key is within the specifying information system itself, creative intelligence is the only known, proven and I believe credible source for such a phenomena, but I say that from many years of arguing with computers and losing! i.e. it gives you a certain perspective on digital systems that is difficult to convey in a short post

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I know what you are claiming. You're repeating yourself in every single post.

What I'm interested in is whether you can support your claims.

So let's go back to this claim of yours:

it uses what might be called 'headers' but in biology are called 'primers' which act as short leading segments of code to identify 'packets' of information, and Telomeres act as 'buffers' to separate different parts of the code.
​

Explain what these things are and how they function. Let's see how similar they are.

and again

WHAT they do is strikingly similar
HOW they do it is obviously not- we never did have any argument here

WHAT they do, is the point,

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Must run for now, appreciate the debate- to try to summarize. .

No matter the mediums we wish to compare and contrast, there is a core/minimum logical process required to direct a functional information system, which does not just fall out of the sky.

There are always going to be an infinitely greater number of ways to arrange chemicals or base pairs or binary bits or pits on a DVD that will fail to produce anything, far less an information system which can contemplate it's own existence... that needs more than a little engineering skill

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The coding systems of natural language, computer code, and DNA have superficial similarities, but are used in very different ways. A recent Mindscape podcast covers how DNA (and other factors) influences the development of organisms: Michael Levin on Growth, Form, Information, and the Self

 

[pitabread]

WHAT they do is strikingly similar
HOW they do it is obviously not- we never did have any argument here

WHAT they do, is the point,

If you can't describe how they function, how can you know what they do?

And this seems to be the core issue here: you're just drawing up inaccurate similarities based on questionable comparisons between unrelated things.

For example, your claim about telomeres isn't really correct. Telomeres don't exist to separate DNA sequences per se. They exist to prevent degeneration (loss) of DNA coding sequences during replication. They also function to prevent unlimited cellular reproduction, as degradation of the telomeres over time leads to eventual cell death.

Off the top of my head, I can't really think of a good analogy for telomeres in computing.