Argument by bad analogy

Originally posted by divegeester
The former is DNA hard-wired and the latter is programming through the environment. I necessarily see why using a programming analogy is inappropriate way of describing how DNA works, if it is appropriate analogy for describing how learned behaviour works.

It's a bad analogy because what you "learn" doesn't change your DNA. If you learned to be a kind, respectful pacifist, and this his become part of your personality, it doesn't mean your offspring will be kind, nice people. Same if you're a mean S.O.B. Likewise with sports. Michael Jordan's sons are all bums as far as basketball is concerned. Nothing Jordan learned as far as the sport became genetic.

Originally posted by C Hess
So, what's the purpose of this thread? What should we talk about? Well, I have a feeling we'll be talking about science, evolution, creationism and bad analogies, all over again.

Argument by anyanalogy is bad.

A good analogy can help someone understand a concept or idea by replacing
something strange by something ordinary.
But an analogy can never be used to prove/disprove something.

Originally posted by C Hess
My design argument thread seems to have derailed beyond all rescue. But it derailed into a rant for a new thread, so here we go.

I was once told that the reason I get frustrated and a tad angry everytime someone compares cellular DNA to computer programming, or complex human-built objects to living things, in an attempt to demonstrate the need for a creato ...[text shortened]... eeling we'll be talking about science, evolution, creationism and bad analogies, all over again.

No, only a stupid person would conclude that your aeroplane lays eggs.

Originally posted by divegeester
The former is DNA hard-wired and the latter is programming through the environment. I necessarily see why using a programming analogy is inappropriate way of describing how DNA works, if it is appropriate analogy for describing how learned behaviour works.

DNA is the memory medium that is programmed. The programming is not hard-wired but is software that can be re-programmed just like a computer's hard drive can be re-programmed. That is an analogy for you. 😏

Originally posted by JS357
We just have to avoid letting the choice of analogy fool us into thinking there are similarities between DNA and programming for which we have no evidence other than thinking our chosen analogy is evidence, such as, thinking that because a program is designed, DNA is designed.

DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast-developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments, and applications of DNA computing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing

Microsof Research: Programming DNA circuits

Molecular devices made of nucleic acids show great potential for applications ranging from bio-sensing to intelligent nanomedicine. They allow computation to be performed at the molecular scale, while also interfacing directly with the molecular components of living systems. They form structures that are stable inside cells, and their interactions can be precisely controlled by modifying their nucleotide sequences.

However, designing correct and robust nucleic acid devices is a major challenge, due to high system complexity and the potential for unwanted interference between molecules in the system. To help address these challenges we have developed the DNA Strand Displacement tool (DSD), a programming language for designing and simulating computational devices made of DNA. The language uses DNA strand displacement as the main computational mechanism, which allows devices to be designed solely in terms of nucleic acids, without the need for additional components. DSD is a first step towards the design of modelling and simulation tools for DNA strand displacement, which complements the emergence of novel implementation strategies for DNA computing.

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/dna/

Originally posted by vivify
It's a bad analogy because what you "learn" doesn't change your DNA. If you learned to be a kind, respectful pacifist, and this his become part of your personality, it doesn't mean your offspring will be kind, nice people. Same if you're a mean S.O.B. Likewise with sports. Michael Jordan's sons are all bums as far as basketball is concerned. Nothing Jordan learned as far as the sport became genetic.

Right. And that is another reason why biological evolution is BS. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Right. And that is another reason why biological evolution is BS. 😏

It's only "B.S." in light of extremely flawed "programer" analogy. In of itself, the small incremental changes described by evolution is sound with endless amounts of evidence supporting it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why would it break with, "what with alleles, arbitrariness of gene order, and so on" and why would someone disagreeing with you make you angry? You get to personally caught up in your own opinion?

It doesn't break because we know from studying nature that there's no need for an external programmer. It breaks because you can't use the analogy of DNA is like a program to posit there has to be a divine programmer, just as you can't use the analogy of plane is like a bird to posit that planes lay eggs. What our knowledge about nature does is make it unlikely that an external programmer need to have existed, just as our knowledge of where planes are produced make it unlikely that planes lay eggs. But really, even if we knew nothing about plane factories, and even if indeed planes do lay eggs, we couldn't draw that conclusion from the analogy alone. Same thing with the DNA as a program analogy, and every variant of it (such as a painter needs a painter and so on).

Why do I get frustrated? Tell me you wouldn't be frustrated if someone insists that because planes are like birds that therefore they lay eggs, even though you point them to the fact that planes are manufactured in factories. It's not just a matter of opinion. Tell me you wouldn't get angry if those same people tried to retard your young impressionable children with that nonsense.

Originally posted by vivify
It's only "B.S." in light of extremely flawed "programer" analogy. In of itself, the small incremental changes described by evolution is sound with endless amounts of evidence supporting it.

No it isn't, the way it could be is if you applied your version of evolution to
the theory, in that you only look at things in light of how it can support
the theory.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Argument by anyanalogy is bad.

A good analogy can help someone understand a concept or idea by replacing
something strange by something ordinary.
But an analogy can never be used to prove/disprove something.

I guess me saying that the analogy is bad (or broken) when used to draw conclusions about the unknown isn't the right way to put it. The analogy is still good, it's just used beyond its usefulness. That's what I mean to say.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, only a stupid person would conclude that your aeroplane lays eggs.

Yes, finally! Surely now you'll stop claiming that because DNA is like a program in some respects, that therefore it requires an intelligent programmer?

Originally posted by RJHinds

DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast-developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments, and applications of DNA com ...[text shortened]... tation strategies for DNA computing.

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/dna/

I guess not. 😞

That was a short-lived joy.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No it isn't, the way it could be is if you applied your version of evolution to
the theory, in that you only look at things in light of how it can support
the theory.

So can we at least agree that analogies can't be used to draw conclusions about the unknown? And can we please stop doing that?

Originally posted by C Hess
It doesn't break because we know from studying nature that there's no need for an external programmer. It breaks because you can't use the analogy of DNA is like a program to posit there has to be a divine programmer, just as you can't use the analogy of plane is like a bird to posit that planes lay eggs. What our knowledge about nature does is make it unlike ...[text shortened]... ngry if those same people tried to retard your young impressionable children with that nonsense.

The debate about design is questioning if there is a designer. That has not
been answered since you cannot come up with how all of this started and
so far your views on how the processes of life are moving forward are also
suspect in my opinion.

You don't really look at what your promoting in a negative light, you find
some nugget that could/maybe/hopefully answer a tough question than
you move on as if it was answered, if that nugget doesn't answer the really
hard question, someone will make up another don't worry! Just focus on
the knowledge that what you believe is true, and someone will validate it
because they are all trying too. *I believe what I think is true too, but I
acknowledge that is faith my part. Those that promote evolution without
acknowledging their faith are fooling themselves even if they are right*

So getting to programming, exactly what do you think that means? Just the
word *program* has to have some meaning, and with it can it be applied to
something correct, what does it mean to you? I am asking so that we are
clear on our terms here before we start debating if it was done in and to
life or not. Can something be programmed without intent through an
external being?

With respect suggesting that life doesn't need an external programmer is
just stating your position it isn't supporting your position.

Originally posted by vivify
It's a bad analogy because what you "learn" doesn't change your DNA. If you learned to be a kind, respectful pacifist, and this his become part of your personality, it doesn't mean your offspring will be kind, nice people. Same if you're a mean S.O.B. Likewise with sports. Michael Jordan's sons are all bums as far as basketball is concerned. Nothing Jordan learned as far as the sport became genetic.

I've heard people claim they believed because they liked a certain sex was
due to their DNA, you don't agree with that?