A computer can make for a good analogy, but the analogy breaks down when you get to the nitty-gritty of the processes.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not only that, but the cell containing the DNA reminds me of a computer system.
- Information storage: DNA
- Processors: Enzymes
- Process spawning: Ribosomes
- Message handlers: RNA
Thanks, you've corrected a misconception. I think I see now why pshun2404 mentioned 64 possible combinations. There are four possibilities per rung, and three rungs per specification, or 4^3. Do I have that right?The answer is yes. TTT codes for a different amino acid than AAA (or AAT, etc).
Yes, that is correct. In the usual genetic code, 3 of the 64 are stop codons, and the rest code for one of the 20 amino acids.Thanks, you've corrected a misconception. I think I see now why pshun2404 mentioned 64 possible combinations. There are four possibilities per rung, and three rungs per specification, or 4^3. Do I have that right?
Under that logic, nothing but binary exists. In base 10, for example, every digit is either greater or equal to 5, or less than 5.Each rung in the ladder is always either an adenine/thymine pair or a cytosine/guanine pair. There are no other combinations, so it's binary. The rungs remind me of "bits" in a computer storage system, which always have one of two possible states.
I've learned (see above) that the rungs are a base-4 code, not a base-2 one.Under that logic, nothing but binary exists. In base 10, for example, every digit is either greater or equal to 5, or less than 5.
And evolution claims that this process of random mutations and natural selection is able to create the amazing complexity and variety we see in all living things from basically nothing and less complex creatures. That living things become fitter and more viable as time goes on rather than more error prone and gradually less fitter. It gives a new meaning to survival of the fittest being the survival of those with the least mutations that cause the deterioration of living things.Not a very good programming language. Every human generation contains, on average, about 60 mutations.
Over 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Due, in part, to more severe "copying" errors.
You can copy a cd/dvd/BluRay millions of times without any errors. Whether the media contain music or code makes no difference.
Good software/hardware catches copy errors by reading the original and the copy and comparing the two.
So how do they produce millions of copies of movies on disks. How did they, not too long ago, produce millions of copies of music albums?Millions of times? On the same hardware? I think you discount wear and tear, random damage such as scratches from misuse or accident, bad reads or writes, etc. How about glitches and viruses? DNA has to deal with such problems and much more.
Not a very good programming language. Every human generation contains, on average, about 60 mutations.
Over 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Due, in part, to more severe "copying" errors.
And evolution claims that this process of random mutations and natural selection is able to create the amazing complexity and variety we see in all living things from basically nothing and less complex creatures. That living things become fitter and more viable as time goes on rather than more error prone and gradually less fitter.
It gives a new meaning to survival of the fittest being the survival of those with the least mutations that cause the deterioration of living things.
ecco said (RE: DNA): ↑
Yes it does. It isn't my problem that you don't understand the process.
The 25% of miscarriages don't carry on their genes to the next generation do they?
There are about 80,000,000 genes in the human genome.
The 60 or so mutations per generation are not necessarily disabling. If they are severely disabling, those genes also don't carry on to the next generation do they?
Of the remaining, some may provide a tiny bit better eyesight, or a tiny bit more strength, or a tiny bit more speed, or a tiny bit smarter brain or a tiny bit worse eyesight, or a tiny bit less strength, or a tiny bit less speed, or a tiny bit dumber brain. A TINY BIT!
Those individuals who got the "better" have a tiny bit more chance of producing offspring. A TINY BIT!
Those individuals who got the "worse" have a tiny bit less chance of producing offspring. A TINY BIT!
A TINY BIT!
It's the same meaning that Darwin proposed a Century and a half ago. The only difference is that now his concept has been verified by Paleontologists, Biologists and Geneticists to name just a few.
If you were alive in 1700 you probably would have been arguing against heliocentricity. For all I know, you may still believe in geocentricity.
Here are some more peer reviewed papers on DNA being likened to a programming code or language.In this peer-reviewed publication they find the "redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing". Which alone is fascinating, but in reading about how they found this out was the interesting part:
"Previously, evolutionary biologists have not been aware of the conceptual complexity required for genomic programming"
"We will demonstrate that the TP schema is a bona fide rule-based code, conforming to logical code-like properties."
"Within the genome domain, executable operations format, read, write, copy, and maintain digital Functional Information (FI)"
"They reveal the ribosome, among other things, to be not only a machine, but an independent computer-mediated manufacturing system"
"We show in this paper that the bit patterns representing TP instructions follow logical and linguistic rules that support their use in a non-ambiguous way."
"We posit that the operation of the ribosome can be viewed as a type of physical multi-core processor in terms of concurrently executing amino acid elongation and pausing control to enable protein folding."
"The ribosome functions as a multi core processing protein synthesis machine."
"The ribosome can be thought of as an autonomous functional processor of data that it sees at its input."
"Such an iterative process nicely lends itself to an algorithmic process should geneticists experiment with writing their own genetic code."
"It has been shown that both the genetic code and TP code are decoupled allowing simultaneous decoding and dual functionality within the ribosome using the same alphabet (nucleotides) but different languages."
"The TP code also exhibits a syntax or grammar that obeys strict codon relationships that demonstrate language properties."
Not just a metaphor, it demonstrates language properties. And all that was just to show:
"The functionality of condonic redundancy denies the ill-advised label of “degeneracy.”
Because:
"Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033003/
So if its such a TINY BIT as you say that doesn't happen that often how does this account for the massive amount of complexity and variety that has ever been and is seen in all living things today. What you have explained with those TINY BITS of better eyesight or being smarter or faster are abilities that already exist and therefore adjustments to stuff that has already got all the genetic info and function there. What about the new stuff that has to be made when it isn't there in the first place.ecco said (RE: DNA): ↑
Yes it does. It isn't my problem that you don't understand the process.
The 25% of miscarriages don't carry on their genes to the next generation do they?
There are about 80,000,000 genes in the human genome.
The 60 or so mutations per generation are not necessarily disabling. If they are severely disabling, those genes also don't carry on to the next generation do they?
Of the remaining, some may provide a tiny bit better eyesight, or a tiny bit more strength, or a tiny bit more speed, or a tiny bit smarter brain or a tiny bit worse eyesight, or a tiny bit less strength, or a tiny bit less speed, or a tiny bit dumber brain. A TINY BIT!
Those individuals who got the "better" have a tiny bit more chance of producing offspring. A TINY BIT!
Those individuals who got the "worse" have a tiny bit less chance of producing offspring. A TINY BIT!
A TINY BIT!
I have read that his theory is also being found to not be the main driving force for change in living things. That non adaptive forces such as HGT are more responsible.It's the same meaning that Darwin proposed a Century and a half ago. The only difference is that now his concept has been verified by Paleontologists, Biologists and Geneticists to name just a few
I follow the evidence but I dont assume that science knows everything and nor is it the be all and end all for everything. So I have more than science to use to look for the answers and dont restrict myself. Sometimes the answers may lie outside the boundaries of scientific thought and evidence.If you were alive in 1700 you probably would have been arguing against heliocentricity. For all I know, you may still believe in geocentricity.
You, like many others, believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution. But you cannot see that they are one and the same. The only difference is the scale of time and the impact of environmental changes.....and nothing has shown the application of this in say changing creatures of one genus into creatures of an entirely different genus over time...speciation has only proved the genetic mechanism in producing variation of or in the same creature.
I certainly did not say “ the majority of mutations are not going to add anything”. I said (in part) "...some may provide a tiny bit better eyesight...Those individuals who got the "better" have a tiny bit more chance of producing offspring."Considering that these are very complex abilities that involved massive amounts of intricate and complex biological abilities they just cant be mutated in one go. ... If the majority of mutations are not going to add anything or have a selective value ...
Three and a half billion years is a lot of time....how can evolution have the time to evolve that complexity and variety.
Change is new stuff.What about the new stuff that has to be made when it isn't there in the first place.
I follow the evidence but I dont assume that science knows everything and nor is it the be all and end all for everything. So I have more than science to use to look for the answers and dont restrict myself. Sometimes the answers may lie outside the boundaries of scientific thought and evidence.
Those individuals who got the "better" have a tiny bit more chance of producing offspring. A TINY BIT!
Those individuals who got the "worse" have a tiny bit less chance of producing offspring. A TINY BIT!
A TINY BIT!
The beneficial ones. Well, actually the neutral ones, but since they mostly don't affect anything important, we can ignore them. The harmful ones are weeded out with great efficiency by natural selection, which leaves the beneficial mutations to accumulate. You can see this in a long-term evolution experiment: if you put bacteria, say, in a new environment, their fitness will get steadily better for a long time.I agree totally.
Which is a problem for evolution.
What Darwin did not know is that
Mutations are 99.9% harmful or neutral at best
.1% or less beneficial
Which will add up faster?
So no, this is not a problem for evolution.
We can actually figure that out. Say we have a plate of 1 million bacteria. We will ignore neutral mutations, and assume there are 10 time the number of bad mutations as good. So 0.1% good, 1% bad. We'll say that on average a good mutation makes a bacteria 20% more successful, and a bad mutation makes it 20% worse. Let's grow the population to 1 trillion. We'll double the baseline each generation and adjust the good and bad off of that.I agree totally.
Which is a problem for evolution.
What Darwin did not know is that
Mutations are 99.9% harmful or neutral at best
.1% or less beneficial
Which will add up faster?
Even the neutral ones lose out in the end. In my example, that happens generation 74.The beneficial ones. Well, actually the neutral ones, but since they mostly don't affect anything important, we can ignore them. The harmful ones are weeded out with great efficiency by natural selection, which leaves the beneficial mutations to accumulate. You can see this in a long-term evolution experiment: if you put bacteria, say, in a new environment, their fitness will get steadily better for a long time.
So no, this is not a problem for evolution.
The neutral ones lose out if they're competing with beneficial ones(*); if they're not competing, then they will accumulate.Even the neutral ones lose out in the end. In my example, that happens generation 74.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?