Interesting Graph on Nobel Prize Winners

[Guisslapp]

You are making a huge philosophically fallacious leap when you compare how we are able to study DNA sequence as information technology to assume that DNA sequences most be intentionally coded by a being in the way software is coded.

We rationalize things in terms of information - that is our common denominator of understanding, thus our brain tends to understand all things of the world in terms of information - whether it was human created information or naturally observed.

Dawkins does a great job explaining things to lay audiences. People understand the analogy, and I agree it is a good analogy and helpful in understanding the field of genetics.

Here is an actual real example of what your cells make from DNA.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_protein


This is what a protein molecule your DNA makes looks like (structurally). Apart from replicating itself with the assistance of other chemicals, that is all it does - it makes things like that (via transcription through RNA). Now what those proteins do are quite important to our lives as human beings.

Those proteins have chemically reactive sites that bind to various other chemicals inside and outside of the cell and influence the behavior of the cell (and your experiences as a human being). It turns out the random-ass order of those amino acids effect the bond angles and internal stresses of that protein chain and make it form weird-ass shapes. Those random weird shapes effect which bonding sites are exposed to chemicals in your body (things we call neurotransmitters because we like to think of things as information), and the interaction of those chemicals on those bond sites can further affect the distortion of that protein’s natural shape, exposing other body sites which induces other physiological effects you experience as a human being.

Knowing all of this, it is not hard at all to imagine that at various point in our evolutionary history, many of our ancestral cousins had DNA that made proteins that just weren’t as evolutionarily useful as the proteins our cells make today.

[T1]

You are making a huge philosophically fallacious leap when you compare how we are able to study DNA sequence as information technology to assume that DNA sequences most be intentionally coded by a being in the way software is coded.

Knowing all of this, it is not hard at all to imagine that at various point in our evolutionary history, many of our ancestral cousins had DNA that made proteins that just weren’t as evolutionarily useful as the proteins our cells make today.

No, a cell really is just like a computer program that has information that it uses to build organisms. If it messes up, the organism is abnormal. I guess another analogy could be that it's like a car manufacturing plant where the assembly line has to put everything in precise order or the car comes out defective.

Here's a short video showing how there is literally code that is read like a blueprint for building the organism perfectly.

[Guisslapp]

No, a cell really is just like a computer program that has information that it uses to build organisms. If it messes up, the organism is abnormal. I guess another analogy could be that it's like a car manufacturing plant where the assembly line has to put everything in precise order or the car comes out defective.

Here's a short video showing how there is literally code that is read like a blueprint for building something so that the organism will build life perfectly.

Omg, that video just basically said the same thing I said with a little more focus on the “coding” analogy and a little cutesy language of “perfect little” protein shape where I said “weird ass” shapes. It is evolutionarily productive protein shapes which only seem “perfect” when viewed with survivorship bias. If three eyes and 4 arms were the norm for humans we wouldn’t be calling your protein shapes “perfect”.

That video doesn’t deal with “how” the DNA was coded, but we know it evolved over time through various processes.

[T1]

The coding is the important part. It is very similar to a computer code. In fact, Bill Gates said DNA is just like computer code, but much more complicated. Dawkins wasn't trying to explain something in layman's terms. It really does have coded information that it uses to build precise organisms. The video shows the Ribosome reading the RNA code to produce what the RNA information was telling it to produce (3:20 mark of the video). How is that not like a computer?

[Guisslapp]

The coding is the important part. It is very similar to a computer code. In fact, Bill Gates said DNA is just like computer code, but much more complicated. Dawkins wasn't trying to explain something in layman's terms. It really does have coded information that it uses to build precise organisms. The video shows the Ribosome reading the RNA code to produce what the RNA information was telling it to produce. How is that not like a computer?

How is it not like a computer? It doesn’t have bits of data stored in electronic form on a semiconductor programmed with the assistance of a coding language that translates human (unless and until AI gets better) commands to bits that, with the assistance of a processor on a semiconductor, performs computations.

They are different physical processes in different domains, but it is a very good analogy for humans to remember in the general sense how DNA influences things that matter to us on a day to day basis. Beyond that, the analogy gets increasingly flimsy. To understand how DNA came into being it isn’t that insightful to think about the analogy - it is much more insightful to study the actual biological mechanisms to understand that point.

I get it. Maybe you don’t want to really understand molecular biology and evolution and it is easier to think about the subject if you keep at an information technology abstraction level (at a superficial level the analogy makes sense). But understanding how these molecules interact on a chemical and structural level helps demystify how these codes could evolve in the first place.

Again our hindsight view of our “design/blueprint” (using the term as loosely as possible to not to imply purpose built design) might lead you to view each random bend and kink and length of every protein to be necessary, and most of it likely is to your specific physical form, is the height of survivorship bias. If it were different in some way you might still consider every part of the proteins your DNA promotes would be just as necessary. Likewise, all other living things that have different DNA and resulting variations in their various proteins structures would have an equal claim to all parts of their protein being necessary. The reality is that there is a broad range of DNA codes that support life, and evolution helps influence which of those DNAs get reproduced and which ones don’t.

[T1]

At least you've moved to it being a very good analogy from your original position of it being nothing like a computer. Seriously, it is very similar in that it has information (coded RNA) that is input into a machine (Ribosome) that reads the data and produces a product (protein). You are just playing semantics. This is a billion year old system too. A system man cannot duplicate if you spot him the cell structure and all the ingredients. A computer is the closest we have come to duplicating what a single cell does. It's clear you cannot be convinced though. Good time to end our conversation. I'll give you the last word.

[Guisslapp]

It is the best analogy there is for a lay person to understand how DNA works. It breaks down when you compare what is happening at a physical level, but that is where it really counts for the question at hand - abiogenesis. I personally found that studying molecular biology demystified the evolutionary process greatly and made it beyond easy to accept that this process is driven by normal chemical and physical processes without requiring any design. Because it has influence my thinking on the subject so heavily I am sensitive to the mechanisms being overly abstracted when focusing on this particular issue.

[PawDawg]

Wow. I hope you didn’t take molecular biology at Tech.
.

Translation: I'm omniscient and learned how to be at EllAye Tech.

[CARTEK]

Guisslapp reminds me of a passage: As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness.

[T1]

I believe atheism is all about a strong value for autonomy. It goes back to the Garden of Eden story when Eve decided she would call her own shots and disobey God. Then Adam followed with an autonomous decision of his own. Atheism is an excellent way to shirk responsibility, but to believe it, your mind has to deny the reality of the world... we DO have authorities in this world, our decisions ARE real, and therefore we ARE held responsible for our actions. Deny it all you want, but that's delusional. Christianity is the opposite... the Christian gives up his autonomy and submits to the Authority to rule his life. One comes from pride (atheism) and the other humility (Christianity).

[Guisslapp]

I believe atheism is all about a strong value for autonomy. It goes back to the Garden of Eden story when Eve decided she would call her own shots and disobey God. Then Adam followed with an autonomous decision of his own. Atheism is an excellent way to shirk responsibility, but to believe it, your mind has to deny the reality of the world... we DO have authorities in this world, our decisions ARE real, and therefore we ARE held responsible for our actions. Deny it all you want, but that's delusional. Christianity is the opposite... the Christian gives up his autonomy and submits to the Authority to rule his life. One comes from pride (atheism) and the other humility (Christianity).

Atheism is all about personal responsibility. We don’t believe our mistakes can be washed away.

Christianity is all about the hope that we won’t be held accountable for our mistakes and deluding oneself over the ultimate finality of death.

[T1]

Atheism is all about personal accountability. We don’t believe our mistakes can be washed away.

Christianity is all about the hope that we won’t be held accountable for our mistakes and believing there is no finality of death.

I would only adjust it slightly.

[dawg80]

Yes, believing there is finality to death. In that regard, atheists are just as dependent on "faith" as Christians are on our faith. Atheists have no more proof they are right than believers have. But, we acknowledge we are leaning on faith. That's the whole root of Christianity. No denying it.

[Guisslapp]

Yes, believing there is finality to death. In that regard, atheists are just as dependent on "faith" as Christians are on our faith. Atheists have no more proof they are right than believers have. But, we acknowledge we are leaning on faith. That's the whole root of Christianity. No denying it.

What did you do before you were alive?

[FriscoDog]

There's an old saying: "If the Bible is false and there is no heaven or afterlife then as a believer shame on me"
However if the Bible is correct "Shame on you (as a non believer)

For me, as a believer, if the Bible were a lie, then how as a believer had it negatively impacted my life? It hasn't. It has actually provided peace during difficult times.