Argument by bad analogy

Originally posted by C Hess
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?

Analogies are just tools to help us understand one another a little better
when it isn't always clear what the other person means. There is nothing
wrong with them, just because some are not good at using them doesn't
mean that they shouldn't be used. I've had positions and points of view
cleared up for me here by the use of them.

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.

There's no such thing as "my version" of evolution. All there is are cold, hard facts, and decades of research, all of which support evolution. Not "my" evolution, but the one proven true time and time again by countless scientists. That's not comparable to people making up analogies in order to keep alive a belief in a bearded man in the sky.

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

Except that people don't "program" or determine what's in their DNA.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Analogies are just tools to help us understand one another a little better
when it isn't always clear what the other person means. There is nothing
wrong with them, just because some are not good at using them doesn't
mean that they shouldn't be used. I've had positions and points of view
cleared up for me here by the use of them.

Again, I have no problem with using analogies to communicate ideas. That is the whole point of using an analogy. I'm bothered by how some use analogies as arguments to posit the unknown. You and RJHinds does it all the time. Essentially RJHinds is saying the equivalent of: "airplanes are like birds, therefore they must lay eggs", and you're saying the equivalent of: "airplanes are like birds, and we don't know how they're made, so they could very well be laying eggs". Only, when you move the subject to DNA and programming, you seem to think it's no longer an invalid use of analogy. This to me is surprising.

Please, do correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally posted by vivify
There's no such thing as "my version" of evolution. All there is are cold, hard facts, and decades of research, all of which support evolution. Not "my" evolution, but the one proven true time and time again by countless scientists. That's not comparable to people making up analogies in order to keep alive a belief in a bearded man in the sky.

Please, every single one of us has a version of evolution and just about
everything else under the sun between their ears! You believe things about
that theory that others do not, you agree with some and disagree with
others over a variety of points on that theory and I imagine about every
thing else under the sun.

You have your head stuck somewhere with respect to analogies, they are
not all about God, or some bearded man in the sky. You seem to have a
one track mind! Analogies are used for getting others to see something
a little clearer.

Originally posted by vivify
Except that people don't "program" or determine what's in their DNA.

Who said they did, and why would they say that?

Originally posted by C Hess
Again, I have no problem with using analogies to communicate ideas. That is the whole point of using an analogy. I'm bothered by how some use analogies as arguments to posit the unknown. You and RJHinds does it all the time. Essentially RJHinds is saying the equivalent of: "airplanes are like birds, therefore they must lay eggs", and you're saying the equival ...[text shortened]... nger an invalid use of analogy. This to me is surprising.

Please, do correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not going to defend RJHinds he can speak for himself on why he does
something and doesn't do others we are not joined at the hip.

What example do you have for me doing something all the time?

I think programming is very solid analogy for DNA, we look at it to try and
understand why things are the way they are. The code is so complex it is
way beyond our skills, but we are striving to understand it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think programming is very solid analogy for DNA, we look at it to try and
understand why things are the way they are. The code is so complex it is
way beyond our skills, but we are striving to understand it.

DNA is actually quite simple. That's the beauty of it.

Try and jumble ones and zeroes around in a computer program and see what you get. Most likely the computer will crash when you run the program. Now, jumble acids in a DNA chain around and insert it into a simple prokaryote, and odds are that you just created a new species of bacteria (there's a little more to it than that, but surprisingly little that is not technology related). Dr. Craig Venter and company discovered this when they created 'Synthia' a few years back, the world's first artificial life form.

The DNA as a program analogy works up to a point. Then you'll have to either broaden the definition of "program" substantially, or abandon the analogy all together, because DNA is more than just a jumbled mess of code (or complex code - as you put it). It's a nucleic acid that reacts with the cellular environment it's in, and this has consequences for what can and cannot happen naturally with it. One thing that can happen is that it can be altered through random chance, and this can be good or bad for the organism carrying the DNA. But it's actually rare (relatively speaking) that naturally occuring random mutations lead to the organism not surviving long enough to reproduce (thanks to the flexibility of DNA described above), meaning changes can spread through the population gene pool, accumulate and later be blindly selected for or against by nature itself. This we call evolution.

Add to this that DNA can mutate in many different ways (from horisontal gene transfer and viral insertions to various forms of copying errors), that the observed evolutionary time scale is vast, that genes are shared between organisms in a predictable, tree-structured manner (reinforced by what we know of ERV's), and the stage is set to explain all life forms of today using evolutionary theory. In fact, all of this only makes sense in light of evolutionary theory.

There are still questions to be answered, lots of them, but no reason to think that they won't have evolutionary answers.

I know you hate this fact, and rather think of it as just an opinion, no worse or better than your own opinion, but really, evolution is a fact, and DNA research keeps shedding more light on that.

But I digress. Yes, for a beginner's understanding of what DNA does, comparing it to a computer program is a solid analogy. You win.

Originally posted by C Hess
DNA is actually quite simple. That's the beauty of it.

Try and jumble ones and zeroes around in a computer program and see what you get. Most likely the computer will crash when you run the program. Now, jumble acids in a DNA chain around and insert it into a simple prokaryote, and odds are that you just created a new species of bacteria (there's a little ...[text shortened]... understanding of what DNA does, comparing it to a computer program is a solid analogy. You win.

If DNA was that simple why aren't we writing code to do away with things
like cancer? You cannot be serous about this we are talking about
programming here, if you want to look at a piece of code that functions you
can look at it in machine language or use some other form language. What
you do see is when a program is properly written that things function as
designed. You can mix milk and chocolate powder any way you want and
you get chocolate milk! Put the proper material in the proper order under
the proper conditions things happen properly!

What you don't get when you jumble a bunch things together is the ability
to do complex work with software like building a system that can keep
track of your checking account, monitor the alarms out side of your home
or one of my favorites allow your new mouse and keyboard to be
understood by the rest of the computer.

Naturally speaking you have not shown anything worth seeing to prove
your point about how DNA isn't like a code. Error checking within life is
as powerful as it gets, things fight to do it right even though things can
go wrong within life from time to time. Your argument still seems to
be "look at the vastness of time" as an excuse to believe in it you may as
well say God did it since neither statement can be proven.

So show me how DNA functions to get things done, explain the rules, and
when you start to see very complex work getting done, you can say you
were wrong saying it is quite simple.

I believe in evolution as I told you, small changes within systems, I don't
see it ever going as far as you claim it does over the vastness of time. What
I believe about it we see, what you are claiming it does, well 'vastness of
time' sort of stuff is just a true believers statement of faith is not a fact.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Please, every single one of us has a version of evolution and just about
everything else under the sun between their ears! You believe things about
that theory that others do not, you agree with some and disagree with
others over a variety of points on that theory and I imagine about every
thing else under the sun.

You have your head stuck somewhere ...[text shortened]... ave a
one track mind! Analogies are used for getting others to see something
a little clearer.

We don't all 'have a version of evolution' that is different to everyone else's. For those of us who accept evolutionary theory as is taught by science, it's quite simple, all life is related and shares a common ancestor. This was brought about by natural selection - the non random selection of random variants.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
We don't all 'have a version of evolution' that is different to everyone else's. For those of us who accept evolutionary theory as is taught by science, it's quite simple, all life is related and shares a common ancestor. This was brought about by natural selection - the non random selection of random variants.

As taught by people, science is taught by people, and people have different
views even while they are talking about the same subject matter.

A common design can also give us shared features.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If DNA was that simple why aren't we writing code to do away with things
like cancer?

Venter and company are working on producing life that can be used for all sorts of medicinal purposes. Not surprisingly, jumbling DNA around to produce a new unspecified bacterial species that produces a new previously unseen protein is very different from producing a bacteria that does a very specific thing, in a safe way. The point of my whole post was to illucidate the fact that unlike a computer program that crashes if you randomly throw bits or even entire bytes around, you can do the equivalent with DNA and it will still produce some kind of result (whether immediately useful of not). This elasticity (if you will), allows nature to do extensive trial an error on accumulated changes, where the result only has meaning in the environment an organism finds itself in.

If you need an analogy, consider throwing a ball at a wall, and watch it bounce back and hit a specific point on the car behind you. If you pick up and throw a second ball and expect it to hit the exact same points you're delusional, however, it's not unreasonable to look at the hit marks of the first ball and conclude that it was thrown in much the same manner. Even though the odds of the ball hitting those exact points are astronomical, we can say that the circumstances that led to the ball hitting those exact points are far from extraordinary. Even though the odds that we should produce a very specific result by simply jumbling DNA around are astronomical, we can see that the only thing needed to produce any currently existing species of bacteria is precisely this simple process of natural selection on random mutation. Life may seem highly complex at this point (especially multi-cellular life), but there's no reason to think it couldn't have evolved to this point from much simpler beginnings, because successful changes (changes that doesn't stop the organism from reproducing) persist.

Not only is there no reason to think evolution couldn't have produced the current level of biocomplexity, there are many reasons to think it has. All the evidence we have so far points to this conclusion, unless you happen to sit on evidence unknown to the entire scientific world, of course.

Originally posted by C Hess
Venter and company are working on producing life that can be used for all sorts of medicinal purposes. Not surprisingly, jumbling DNA around to produce a new unspecified bacterial species that produces a new previously unseen protein is very different from producing a bacteria that does a very specific thing, in a safe way. The point of my whole post was to i ...[text shortened]... clusion, unless you happen to sit on evidence unknown to the entire scientific world, of course.

You say this like it is no big deal with any understanding as to why!
Exactly what makes you think this isn't some super programming feat of
unbelievable skill and foresight?

You again are taking preexisting DNA and jumbling it around, if it is no big
deal start from scratch and create your own!

Originally posted by C Hess
Venter and company are working on producing life that can be used for all sorts of medicinal purposes. Not surprisingly, jumbling DNA around to produce a new unspecified bacterial species that produces a new previously unseen protein is very different from producing a bacteria that does a very specific thing, in a safe way. The point of my whole post was to i ...[text shortened]... clusion, unless you happen to sit on evidence unknown to the entire scientific world, of course.

Not only is there no reason to think evolution couldn't have produced the current level of biocomplexity, there are many reasons to think it has. All the evidence we have so far points to this conclusion, unless you happen to sit on evidence unknown to the entire scientific world, of course.

There are plenty of reason to doubt it could produce the current level of
life we see around us. I'm all for see some evidence that shows it is possible!

I want to see something built that wasn't there before!

If you cannot produce that, you have nothing.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I want to see something built that wasn't there before!

If you cannot produce that, you have nothing.

You're gonna have to be more specific than that, because I don't even understand what you're asking for. Something built?