- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsOh, this is the Lynn Margulis incident all over again. You quote one of the most important scientists in modern biology, but you have no idea what that scientist is actually saying. Denis Noble advocates the idea that life is far more complicated and messy than Neo-Darwinism admits of.
Anyone that know anything at all about the DNA of the cell should know that is not so.
DNA Structure and Replication: Crash Course Biology #10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kK2zwjRV0M
The programming metaphor only works to a certain extent. In Neo-Darwinism, you can actually stretch it quite far, because in this model, the DNA is thought of as basically a set of instructions for how the cell can produce certain proteins and some RNA sequences, that then (along with cell divisions) produces the parts of an organism. It's sort-of like a computer, but this computer replicates itself. Essentially, Neo-Darwinism is a reductionist view of biology. You're trying to describe complete organisms in terms of their smallest parts, and those smallest parts dictating how the organisms are built (here's the gene for this part and there's the gene for that part).
Noble suggests quite a different way to think about it. DNA is more like a jumble of pieces to a greater puzzle, where the cells themselves and the environment they operate in constitute other parts. Here, higher-level functions (the results of what the cells are doing - like producing hormones or electrical currents in neuron cell membranes) feed back into the lower-level parts, the cells, producing complex and messy interactions that renders the programming metaphor completely useless.
So, it's not really all that simple. Even in Neo-Darwinism, where cells are sometimes described as little computers that execute the DNA code, the metaphor breaks once you delve deeper into the inner workings of cells. Only someone with blinders on can maintain this metaphor in light of what modern biology has revealed.
Originally posted by C HessDNA programming is not a metaphor. It is a scientific fact. 😏
Oh, this is the Lynn Margulis incident all over again. You quote one of the most important scientists in modern biology, but you have no idea what that scientist is actually saying. Denis Noble advocates the idea that life is far more complicated and messy than Neo-Darwinism admits of.
The programming metaphor only works to a certain extent. In Neo-Darwini ...[text shortened]... omeone with blinders on can maintain this metaphor in light of what modern biology has revealed.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThe life journey of DNA is not just a program, it is alterable by effects of temperature, food stress, and other means that can control the expression of genes, it's called epigenetics and is a proven fact that it is not just DNA meeting DNA that effects changes in life forms. Epigeneitics plays a much larger role than previously thought. Like one generation of mice getting some toxin and the second generation having the same problems as gen 1 and gen 2 having the same problems as gen 1 even though the toxin is long gone by that time. You can poo poo all that and such but that is just you showing off your ignorance. Those environmental effects can stay for a number of generations showing it is not just DNA VS DNA effecting progeny.
I understand that you have no logical argument.
Originally posted by sonhouseThat does not negate the fact that DNA contains the program instructions for the reproduction of the life form. The fact that the program can be altered in no way means the program is not there to provide the instructions for reproduction.
The life journey of DNA is not just a program, it is alterable by effects of temperature, food stress, and other means that can control the expression of genes, it's called epigenetics and is a proven fact that it is not just DNA meeting DNA that effects changes in life forms. Epigeneitics plays a much larger role than previously thought. Like one generatio ...[text shortened]... ffects can stay for a number of generations showing it is not just DNA VS DNA effecting progeny.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsBut if the "program" is altered by natural processes, why do you think it must have been written by an intelligence in the first place, and how much of the original "program" do you think is left?
That does not negate the fact that DNA contains the program instructions for the reproduction of the life form. The fact that the program can be altered in no way means the program is not there to provide the instructions for reproduction.
Originally posted by C HessBecause the program does intelligent things and is more advance than any written by man according to Bill Gates of Microsoft, and he should know something about how programs are produced only by intelligence. A random natural process obeys the Laws of Nature, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics which would make the program deteriorate and become worse and stop working.
But if the "program" is altered by natural processes, why do you think it must have been written by an intelligence in the first place, and how much of the original "program" do you think is left?
Originally posted by RJHindsBeen going on for a long time now and no deterioration in sight and no sign of intelligence driving them. It is still effected by more than just colliding DNA, epigenetics effects far more than we thought.
Because the program does intelligent things and is more advance than any written by man according to Bill Gates of Microsoft, and he should know something about how programs are produced only by intelligence. A random natural process obeys the Laws of Nature, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics which would make the program deteriorate and become worse and stop working.
Originally posted by sonhouseDeath is evidence of deterioration. It has been in sight from before you were born.
Been going on for a long time now and no deterioration in sight and no sign of intelligence driving them. It is still effected by more than just colliding DNA, epigenetics effects far more than we thought.
Originally posted by sonhouseHow is death as evidence of deterioration a stupid statement. Tell me why death is not evidence of deterioration, if your are so much more intelligent and knowledgeable on the subject than me. 😏
Prime example of you moving the goalposts again. You just make stupid statements as if you thought you were being intelligent somehow.