What did it all started with?

[Guy Threepwood]

Yep, that's how software is hierarchical. One routine calls another by making choices (logical expressions) with inputs, etc., etc., etc.

Now you veering dangerously close to the "I make web pages, therefore I program" fallacy. But I digress...

Not at all, I started programming in the early 80's including in pure machine code - I do work on some commercial websites today just because I kinda have to in my territory, but the limitations of cross compatibility are very frustrating v being able to squeeze the most out of a particular platform.

Except gene regulation and expression use various chemicals. They require a molecule of a particular type (say some sort of regulator component) to attach to something that allows or stops something from happening.

You are talking about the hardware- the medium used by the information system- of course the biological medium is different than used by today's computers- though in the case of 'DNA computing' the medium is one and the same.

Computer programs don't work that way. I don't press a button that makes a bunch of mini "post reply" programs that float about in memory until they find an open "post-reply" receptor on the web page "gene" and then it activates the function and my post is posted. Instead there is an active program monitoring my mouse being run by the program scheduler. When it detects my mouse click it transmits a message to the window manager that determines it was over the "Post Reply" button in this web page and sends a signal to the browser to activate that code and the the web page activates the code that sends my post to the CF server.

I certainly don't mean to imply any sort of equivalence in the sophistication of each information system.

As you point out, our technology is extremely clumsy and crude in comparison- DNA is nanotech parallel computing beyond our dreams.
Imagine a computer where trillions of independent nanomachines interact, building themselves and new circuits on the fly to communicate with each other and perform trillions of tasks simultaneously.

Still a hierarchical digital information system- but far more advanced.

I remember the day when you only needed 7-bits to encode keyboard output...

well sure- and they still do, the extra bit is for extended symbols

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not at all, I started programming in the early 80's including in pure machine code - I do work on some commercial websites today just because I kinda have to in my territory, but the limitations of cross compatibility are very frustrating v being able to squeeze the most out of a particular platform.

You are talking about the hardware- the medium used by the information system- of course the biological medium is different than used by today's computers- though in the case of 'DNA computing' the medium is one and the same.

I certainly don't mean to imply any sort of equivalence in the sophistication of each information system.

As you point out, our technology is extremely clumsy and crude in comparison- DNA is nanotech parallel computing beyond our dreams.
Imagine a computer where trillions of independent nanomachines interact, building themselves and new circuits on the fly to communicate with each other and perform trillions of tasks simultaneously.

Still a hierarchical digital information system- but far more advanced.

well sure- and they still do, the extra bit is for extended symbols

The computer code analogy just happens to be the best one we have - it doesn't mean it's more than a superficial resemblance; the only thing the two systems really have in common is encoding and transcription. It reminds me of the pre-computer days when the best analogy we had for the brain was a telephone switchboard...

The DNA system isn't particularly 'advanced', it's rather disorganised, full of rubbish and stuff being transcribed to no useful purpose, and far more complicated than any rational design would implement, but it does the job.

An intelligent designer might suggest something like the basic coding & transcription system, but the rest looks like it's been dragged through a hedge backwards - just what you'd expect from a system developed through millions of years of trial and error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well Dawkins is not a computer programmer and I am not an evolutionary biologist, yet we both agree on a lot from different perspectives- parallel lines of evidence if you will.

I also define genetic information as truly digital, in the strong sense- it's not a mere analogy, it is objectively and definitively a hierarchical digital information system. I see uncanny similarities between our digital information systems and DNA also.

Dawkins and I also agree that biological systems, on the face of it, appear as if they were designed. The only difference is that I don't believe this appearance is an illusion, I believe, as many scientists do, that biology looks designed simply because it was designed.

The problem for your claim is that in the sense that DNA is "evidence" there is no need for an intelligence demonstrated for it. You are just trying to define the need into existence and reality does not work that way.

If you understood the concept of scientific evidence your failure would be obvious to you.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The computer code analogy just happens to be the best one we have - it doesn't mean it's more than a superficial resemblance; the only thing the two systems really have in common is encoding and transcription. It reminds me of the pre-computer days when the best analogy we had for the brain was a telephone switchboard...

"we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. [] The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . . ."

^ again I agree with Dawkins here, DNA is a digital information system - that's not an analogy, it is an objective literal description.

There are many aspects beyond that that are certainly analogous yes, as you would expect from any designed software/hardware systems

The DNA system isn't particularly 'advanced', it's rather disorganised, full of rubbish and stuff being transcribed to no useful purpose, and far more complicated than any rational design would implement, but it does the job.

An intelligent designer might suggest something like the basic coding & transcription system, but the rest looks like it's been dragged through a hedge backwards - just what you'd expect from a system developed through millions of years of trial and error.

I also agree with Bill Gates here "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created"

A caveman might look at a smart phone and say - well it does the job of showing my reflection but it doesn't need all that other useless stuff. It's not so long ago that 'Junk DNA' was considered entirely useless also.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you understood the concept of scientific evidence your failure would be obvious to you.

sticks and stones- here's the substance:

We have plenty of evidence for how digital information systems can be produced through creative intelligence- you are looking at that evidence right now- and that's called 'empirical' evidence.

We have no such evidence of such a system ever being originated through blind natural forces.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. [] The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . . ."

^ again I agree with Dawkins here, DNA is a digital information system - that's not an analogy, it is an objective literal description.

Yes, genes hold digital information; read what I said - 'the computer code analogy'. But genes are only about 1-2% of our DNA.

I also agree with Bill Gates here "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created"

I thought you might. I can't tell you why Gates said that - perhaps for poetic or rhetorical effect, but it's simply misleading. DNA really isn't like a computer program, and the closest computer analogy for genes is data, not code.

A caveman might look at a smart phone and say - well it does the job of showing my reflection but it doesn't need all that other useless stuff. It's not so long ago that 'Junk DNA' was considered entirely useless also.

At least 75-80% of it is useless in terms of the cybernetic/computer analogy. Some chunks of satellite DNA have structural utility, but no useful information content or function.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, genes hold digital information; read what I said - 'the computer code analogy'. But genes are only about 1-2% of our DNA.

I thought you might. I can't tell you why Gates said that - perhaps for poetic or rhetorical effect, but it's simply misleading. DNA really isn't like a computer program, and the closest computer analogy for genes is data, not code.

At least 75-80% of it is useless in terms of the cybernetic/computer analogy. Some chunks of satellite DNA have structural utility, but no useful information content or function.

Well I guess Dawkins, Gates and myself can agree to disagree with Mr Bandersnatch on this!
But again whether or not you feel comfortable likening it to a computer program, it is quite literally a digital information system.

'no useful information..' should read 'no currently discernable useful information..' which is an ever shrinking fraction

Research identifies potential role of ‘junk DNA’ sequence in aging, cancer | WSU Insider | Washington State University
Research identifies potential role of ‘junk DNA’ sequence in aging, cancer
July 23, 2021

"
Junk no more
Zhu said that his team’s latest finding that VNTR2-1 helps to drive the activity of the telomerase gene is especially notable because of the type of DNA sequence it represents.

“Almost 50% of our genome consists of repetitive DNA that does not code for protein,” Zhu said. “These DNA sequences tend to be considered as ‘junk DNA’ or dark matters in our genome, and they are difficult to study. Our study describes that one of those units actually has a function in that it enhances the activity of the telomerase gene.”"

^ just one recent study but there are many similar. At the very least we can see that insisting all 'Junk DNA' is useless -to satisfy a Darwinian assumption, potentially limits science from beneficial breakthroughs.

Beyond that a lot of code in my programs I know for sure will never have any function in a particular installation. There are many reasons for this- sometimes it just makes sense to copy over a bundle of functions from older software from which the new version can select. As with DNA- memory space isn't really an issue these days in terms of source code.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are talking about the hardware- the medium used by the information system- of course the biological medium is different than used by today's computers- though in the case of 'DNA computing' the medium is one and the same.

Except inside the cell it's all just chemicals and chemical reactions.

Transcription is a chemical reaction, regulation is chemical reactions, all of it is chemical reactions. The only thing special about the DNA molecule is that there is only one of the per cell. DNA certainly does not interact with "the hardware" in the same fashion as a stream of bits floating through a processor made of transistors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

sticks and stones- here's the substance:

We have plenty of evidence for how digital information systems can be produced through creative intelligence- you are looking at that evidence right now- and that's called 'empirical' evidence.

We have no such evidence of such a system ever being originated through blind natural forces.

So what?
And we do have plenty of evidence on how "information" is produced naturally. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs. You can probably prove that yourself.

I doubt if you understand what evidence is. Every creationist that makes that claim always show that they do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well I guess Dawkins, Gates and myself can agree to disagree with Mr Bandersnatch on this!

I guess one needs to have formally studied or worked in both fields to understand how different they are.

.. it is quite literally a digital information system.

Yes, in as much as it uses non-analogue encoding for the most part.

'no useful information..' should read 'no currently discernable useful information..' which is an ever shrinking fraction

The structural satellite DNA I was referring to is not transcribed and consists mainly of long sequences of repeats. IOW it has the same kind of 'useful information' as other structural parts of the cell - that is its analogue physical configuration.

... At the very least we can see that insisting all 'Junk DNA' is useless -to satisfy a Darwinian assumption, potentially limits science from beneficial breakthroughs.

I agree. I've even described a known use for junk DNA.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except inside the cell it's all just chemicals and chemical reactions.

Transcription is a chemical reaction, regulation is chemical reactions, all of it is chemical reactions. The only thing special about the DNA molecule is that there is only one of the per cell. DNA certainly does not interact with "the hardware" in the same fashion as a stream of bits floating through a processor made of transistors.

Yes, again we agree the medium is entirely different- no argument there. Just as an abacus uses an entirely different medium from an LCD calculator to represent information. Both though represent information systems, symbolic code conventions, a capacity for anticipation and hence a fingerprint of intentional design.

If we wanted to examine similarities in the physical systems we certainly can do that also:

If we're talking about multiple automated machines directed by digital information, finding receptive physical locations to deliver their packages- am I talking about DNA/ messenger RNA, or an Amazon distribution center? or a modern shipping port? computer aided manufacturing? And you could make a pretty good inference to design based on just these physical similarities. But the information question is distinct and transcends any particular physical medium.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... you could make a pretty good inference to design based on just these physical similarities.

On what criteria would you base that inference?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So what?
And we do have plenty of evidence on how "information" is produced naturally. There is no scientific evidence for your beliefs. You can probably prove that yourself.

I doubt if you understand what evidence is. Every creationist that makes that claim always show that they do not understand the concept of evidence.

^
Well I certainly do admire your example in posts like these, of such cool headed, thought provoking, evidence-based scientific counter arguments, which really set the standard here.

It totally contradicts that old stereotype of the 'all insults- no substance, angry atheist ' you run into on some forums.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

On what criteria would you base that inference?

By what method can we empirically demonstrate such systems can be created?

We know it can be achieved through creative intelligence
But we cannot test, observe, demonstrate the same for blind natural forces

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

By what method can we empirically demonstrate such systems can be created?

We know it can be achieved through creative intelligence
But we cannot test, observe, demonstrate the same for blind natural forces

Analogies and gross similarities are not criteria. But of course, we can and do demonstrate how the 'blind natural force' of evolution can produce 'designs' - we can watch evolution in the wild and in the lab, and we can emulate those processes in software. Evolutionary software can produce some wonderfully creative 'designs' by the same trial-and-error processes that occur in evolution by natural selection. So-called 'evolutionary solvers' are a core component of generative design software.

If there are populations that reproduce with variation and there are selective pressures that act on them, they will evolve, whether they're pre-biotic reaction chains, living things, or computer simulations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Analogies and gross similarities are not criteria.

Well they absolutely are if you are an archeologist!- many objects are identified as a probably a product of intelligence v nature by simply being similar to examples already found. But the point being there are more definitive measures than mere similarity.

Archeologists can absolutely confirm creative intelligence in objects like the Rosetta Stone at a mere glance- not because of their physical medium or shape, but from information that the medium has been used to describe.

So again it is the information which is the more definitive evidence rather than the medium- which may or may not also constitute evidence.

But of course, we can and do demonstrate how the 'blind natural force' of evolution can produce 'designs' - we can watch evolution in the wild and in the lab, and we can emulate those processes in software. Evolutionary software can produce some wonderfully creative 'designs' by the same trial-and-error processes that occur in evolution by natural selection. So-called 'evolutionary solvers' are a core component of generative design software.

We cannot observe the system being originated by nature, we can only crudely reproduce small pieces of it with the help of a lot of creative intelligence.

And even granted abiogenesis as a freebie- in demonstrating the claim that humans evolved from a bacteria like organism through natural selection acting on random mutation- we have got as far as more bacteria.. that leaves quite a bit to the imagination.

If there are populations that reproduce with variation and there are selective pressures that act on them, they will evolve, whether they're pre-biotic reaction chains, living things, or computer simulations.

And yet Horseshoe crabs apparently lived though almost half a billion years of environmental change in virtual stasis.. how would you reconcile your statement with this observation?

 

[Hans Blaster]

And yet Horseshoe crabs apparently lived though almost half a billion years of environmental change in virtual stasis.. how would you reconcile your statement with this observation?

And this is a problem, how?

Modern Horseshoe crabs *look* like ancient ones, but are they the same species? Could they interbreed? (A common species definition) If the body plan is successful, why *would* it change?

(And I don't know the answer to this one: How many Horseshoe crab species are there now? In the past? Are any other species descended from the ancient "Horseshoe crabs"?)

Horseshoe crabs live in marine environments. Though things change locally, why couldn't they migrate slowly as things change to stay in optimal environments for their adaptations?

My ancestors have had 4 limbs and a spine for a few [hundred] million years, just like I do. That hasn't changed.

 

[Estrid]

And this is a problem, how?

Modern Horseshoe crabs *look* like ancient ones, but are they the same species? Could they interbreed? (A common species definition) If the body plan is successful, why *would* it change?

(And I don't know the answer to this one: How many Horseshoe crab species are there now? In the past? Are any other species descended from the ancient "Horseshoe crabs"?)

Horseshoe crabs live in marine environments. Though things change locally, why couldn't they migrate slowly as things change to stay in optimal environments for their adaptations?

My ancestors have had 4 limbs and a spine for a few million years, just like I do. That hasn't changed.

Ifn it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And this is a problem, how?

Modern Horseshoe crabs *look* like ancient ones, but are they the same species?

who knows? But how how quickly arguments for Darwinism go from 'mountains of undeniable evidence' to 'well you never know- it coulda happened!'

Could they interbreed? (A common species definition)

unless of course one is talking about Neanderthals and wants to claim 'speciation' of humans

If the body plan is successful, why *would* it change?

Well we agree- apparently they don't- you might want to debate this with Frumious though: "If there are populations that reproduce with variation and there are selective pressures that act on them, they will evolve, whether they're pre-biotic reaction chains, living things, or computer simulations."

(And I don't know the answer to this one: How many Horseshoe crab species are there now? In the past? Are any other species descended from the ancient "Horseshoe crabs"?)

Horseshoe crabs live in marine environments. Though things change locally, why couldn't they migrate slowly as things change to stay in optimal environments for their adaptations?

My ancestors have had 4 limbs and a spine for a few million years, just like I do. That hasn't changed.

That sounds reasonable to me, and I think there are lots of reasons we don't see much evidence of gradual change across the entire fossil record, but these all present problems for a theory that relies on gradual change, where 'Natura non facit saltus'

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well we agree- apparently they don't- you might want to debate this with Frumious though: "If there are populations that reproduce with variation and there are selective pressures that act on them, they will evolve, whether they're pre-biotic reaction chains, living things, or computer simulations."

I didn't say they didn't evolve, I said their form hadn't changed noticeably (which is evident from the fossils). In the modern synthesis the changes in the genetics over time would constitute evolution.

If there is no pressure to change a lifestyle, body form, etc., the population may look very similar for millions of generations. If the pressures are strong to avoid a negative impact or take advantage of a new opportunity evolution can be rapid.

There is nothing about differences in rates of change in body forms or lifestyle that conflict with evolution. In fact, it should be expected.