Something for the scientists to debate

The Cadet · Apr 13, 2016

Hieronymus said:
But code is code, code implies stuff.
It is language with meaning.

Okay. But DNA is a bunch of molecules. It is not "language". Language is an abstraction that we read into the physical substrate. Meaning doubly so.

HitchSlap · Apr 13, 2016

I don't read creationist editorials. Sorry.

Loudmouth · Apr 13, 2016

Not_By_Chance said:
I've received an article but it doesn't mean much to me as I'm not a scientist, but I thought those among you who are might find it interesting. It's in two parts:-

Beneficial Mutations - Real or Imaginary - Part One
Beneficial Mutations - Real or Imaginary - Part Two

Enjoy.

The basic problem with the entire argument is that it ignores the genetic differences between species.

Take humans and chimps as an example. Why is the human brain bigger than the chimp brain? It's because the DNA sequence of each species is different. When we line up the chimp and human genome, we notice that they share about 98% of their DNA sequence. The physical differences between us and chimps is down to that 2% DNA sequence difference. Most of us consider human adaptations to be beneficial, so the logical and unavoidable conclusion is that within the 2% difference are beneficial mutations.

The other difficulty that the author takes advantage of is the ability to detect beneficial and deleterious mutations. Mutations that cause disease are much easier to find than mutations that increase health. When people are sick, they go see a doctor. We spend billions of dollars figuring out what causes these diseases. No one goes to the doctor if they feel well, or extra well. No one spends billions of dollars figuring out why someone feels healthy.

Researchers also do random knockout experiments to figure out which genes control which features. They use a piece of DNA that randomly inserts into DNA, and then look for the disease state in the resulting offspring. This technology doesn't allow us to produce the type of mutations that would lead to beneficial phenotypes. We simply lack the tools to produce and identify beneficial mutations with the same effectiveness as compared to deleterious mutations.

One method that does hold out hope is comparing a lot of genomes to one another, which is the type of work that sfs does (I believe). By looking at sections of the genome that have undergone selection, you can narrow down your search for beneficial mutations.

Loudmouth · Apr 13, 2016

Hieronymus said:
Data corruption is "deleterious".
Sorry...

Are humans just corrupted chimps because our DNA is 2% different?

Hieronymus · Apr 13, 2016

The Cadet said:
Okay. But DNA is a bunch of molecules.

So is a book, so is a USB stick.

It is not "language". Language is an abstraction that we read into the physical substrate. Meaning doubly so.

GTAC are the symbols that are used in the abstraction of the organism's built.
This is obvious.

Hieronymus · Apr 13, 2016

HitchSlap said:
I don't read creationist editorials. Sorry.

Then what brings you here?

Subduction Zone · Apr 13, 2016

Not_By_Chance said:
I've received an article but it doesn't mean much to me as I'm not a scientist, but I thought those among you who are might find it interesting. It's in two parts:-

Beneficial Mutations - Real or Imaginary - Part One
Beneficial Mutations - Real or Imaginary - Part Two

Enjoy.

I very rarely have seen a valid argument come from a website that orders their employees not to use the scientific method. Perhaps you can find a valid site that supports your ideas?

Subduction Zone · Apr 13, 2016

Hieronymus said:
Data corruption is "deleterious".
Sorry...

DNA is hardly "data". And mutations are not corruption, they are merely changes. By trying to call mutations corruption or even "errors" one has to make unwarranted assumptions. At best one could call them "copying errors", that is if your goal was an absolutely perfect copy of the original, but that was never the goal of reproduction.

Loudmouth · Apr 13, 2016

Hieronymus said:
So is a book, so is a USB stick.

Do you chemically react with a book in order to read it?

GTAC are the symbols that are used in the abstraction of the organism's built.

I'm not seeing any of those letters in the actual DNA molecule.

Gracchus · Apr 13, 2016

Hieronymus said:
But code is code, code implies stuff.

If you are not doing poetry, ignore the implications and go with the definitions, with due regard to context. "1" is a number. It is also computer code that to a certain computer meant "Read a card".

It is language with meaning.

Language is meaningless in itself. Its utility arises from our agreement on what it means. Much confusion arises when what we try to say is not what is understood.
For instance, if one hears, "He has a bad heart.", one may take this to mean, "His pump is malfunctioning.", or it may be taken to mean that "He is evil by nature." Or, if one is religious, one can take it to mean that "God is punishing an evil nature by making a pump malfunction." That last satisfies both interpretations, so it must be true! To communicate we must agree on definitions that are precise enough to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding.

Gracchus · Apr 13, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Do you chemically react with a book in order to read it?

Actually, reading is neurochemistry all the way from perception to understanding!

I'm not seeing any of those letters in the actual DNA molecule.

Those letters are code for a code. Confusing, isn't it?

Loudmouth · Apr 13, 2016

Gracchus said:
Actually, reading is neurochemistry all the way from perception to understanding!

But do you have to chemically react with the ink on the page in order to read it?

Those letters are code for a code. Confusing, isn't it?

What is the difference between a code and a molecule?

For example, I can express water as H2O. Does that mean water is a code? I can also use the Pauli orbital exclusion code 1s2 2s2 2p2 for Carbon. Does that mean Carbon is made up of code?

The Cadet · Apr 13, 2016

Hieronymus said:
So is a book, so is a USB stick.

Right. And we read the meaning into these things. A piece of paper covered in random ink spatterings is not a story, yet one might very easily mistake a foreign or alien language for such a thing.

Honestly, at this point your argumentation is so fragmented I'm not sure where we were any more. "Code implies stuff"? What stuff, pray tell? And keep in mind that if you think DNA is a code, you can't just assume it falls in line with all manmade codes, you have to actually make the argument here.

Gracchus · Apr 13, 2016

Loudmouth said:
But do you have to chemically react with the ink on the page in order to read it?

No, but you do have to physically react to it, and you must react neurochemically to derive meaning.

What is the difference between a code and a molecule?

For example, I can express water as H2O. Does that mean water is a code?

H2O or (HOH as the organic chemists prefer) is code that, in context, may refer to water. I could also refer to water thus H2 + O <> HOH + H3O(+) + OH(-) + H2O2 ... It is not water, it is code for the the dynamic process that is water. Some water is not HOH but hydronium ion H3O(+), hydroxide ion OH(-) and even hydrogen peroxide H2O2. Water is a process approaching dynamic equilibrium.

I can also use the Pauli orbital exclusion code 1s2 2s2 2p2 for Carbon. Does that mean Carbon is made up of code?

There can be different codes for the same thing. "Carbon" is linguistic code for the element with six protons. DNA is not a code. It is a molecule, the product of a self-catalyzing system of reactions, commonly referred to as "life".
Metaphors, codes for other codes, can cause much confusion.

Loudmouth · Apr 13, 2016

Gracchus said:
No, but you do have to physically react to it, and you must react neurochemically to derive meaning.

Not the same thing.

To put this another way, if we typed out the human genome in really, really small ink letters (ATCG) on a tiny, tiny stretch of paper and put it into the nucleus of a cell, could it be a viable replacement for DNA? Of course not. It isn't any abstract information that the letters are providing. It is the actual chemical makeup of the molecule that is vital for the survival of the cell.

DNA is not a code. It is a molecule, the product of a self-catalyzing system of reactions, commonly referred to as "life".
Metaphors, codes for other codes, can cause much confusion.

Indeed. It is this confusion that ID/creationists try to take advantage of.

Gracchus · Apr 13, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Not the same thing.
To put this another way, if we typed out the human genome in really, really small ink letters (ATCG) on a tiny, tiny stretch of paper and put it into the nucleus of a cell, could it be a viable replacement for DNA? Of course not. It isn't any abstract information that the letters are providing. It is the actual chemical makeup of the molecule that is vital for the survival of the cell.

I don't disagree. Indeed it is literally "vital".

Gracchus said:
Gracchus said:

Metaphors, codes for other codes, can cause much confusion.

Click to expand...

Indeed. It is this confusion that ID/creationists try to take advantage of.

I don't think they are "trying to take advantage. They are just confused.

Derek Meyer · Apr 14, 2016

Hieronymus said:
Ad hominem argumentation.

Nope. I don't see it like that at all.

I don't even consider reading what a diesel mechanic writes regarding climate change on some religious website when I need information on my irregular heart beat. No matter how qualified that diesel mechanic is in diesel mechanics. He won't know much about my irregular heart beats.

If you want to call that 'Ad hominem argumentation', so be it.

Derek Meyer · Apr 14, 2016

Hieronymus said:
Data corruption is "deleterious".
Sorry...

These creationists are funny. How on earth is a mutation 'data corruption'?

Hieronymus · Apr 14, 2016

Derek Meyer said:
These creationists are funny. How on earth is a mutation 'data corruption'?

You know how.
Random mutations are random.
So if you have a fully functioning system based on data implementations, randomly mutating the data will be 'deleterous'.
Nothing funny about it, just sad i have to explain the obvious.

Hieronymus · Apr 14, 2016

Derek Meyer said:
Nope. I don't see it like that at all.

Then you must have a problem seeing.

Something for the scientists to debate

SO COOL

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

SO COOL

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency