|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
 Posted - 03/07/2003 : 11:51:53 [Permalink]
|
A summary of all points answered:
#1. DA claimed that DNA that is random and redundant does not appear in nature.
#1a. I demonstrated that DNA not under selection does occur in nature and is random and redundant.
#2. DA continues to claim that information cannot arise without an intelligent source.
#2a. I have demonstrated that information in DNA for specific products can arise via a process of selection.
#2c. DA and all of his references refuse to even mention the process of selection (whether natural or artificial).
In summary my original points still remain:
#1. DNA by itself and not under selection is random and redundant
#2. DNA under selection contains information for specific products that are selected for.
#3. The process of selection has been demonstrated to be able to generate information without an intelligent source.
In fact points #1 and #2 (which I have demonstrated to be observable facts both in the lab and in nature) when put together both point to the fact that selection is the process that DNA gains information, not an intelligent source. If there was an intelligent source we would not expect #1 to exist at all, but it does. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 12:53:10 [Permalink]
|
I asked DA if he thought that bacteria were intelligent (since they create DNA, and DA has asserted that only intelligent beings can do so), and got back this non-sequitor answer,quote:
All I see is you jcmginn,Slater chasing your tails like dogs when it comes to the simple obvious facts that DNA/RNA (despite repeated lies)is not random or redundant :
when I never claimed that DNA was random or not random, redundant or not redundant. I made no claims about those particular qualities of DNA one way or another. Another failed attempt by DA to change the subject. Another example of DA refusing to defend his position.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 14:56:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I asked DA if he thought that bacteria were intelligent (since they create DNA, and DA has asserted that only intelligent beings can do so), and got back this non-sequitor answer . . . .
Why is everyone treating the subject of bacterial intelligence as a kind of extreme joke? Is it because bacteria are too small and that smallness presupposes non-intelligence?  |
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 15:47:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Computer Org
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I asked DA if he thought that bacteria were intelligent (since they create DNA, and DA has asserted that only intelligent beings can do so), and got back this non-sequitor answer . . . .
Why is everyone treating the subject of bacterial intelligence as a kind of extreme joke? Is it because bacteria are too small and that smallness presupposes non-intelligence?
No its because they don't have the structures necessary for intelligence nor do they display any of the traits of intelligence. Anatomy, physiology, and behavior are things that can presuppose intelligence. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 19:19:08 [Permalink]
|
jcmginn:quote:
A summary of all points answered:
#1. DA claimed that DNA that is random and redundant does not appear in nature.
#1a. I demonstrated that DNA not under selection does occur in nature and is random and redundant.
It seems you have a very strange understanding of what random and redundant is.Again you first claimed that Sagan "agreed" with your strange account of DNA then after I pointed out you don't get libraries of info from random/redundant sources you changed your tune and said,"Sagan is referring to DNA in a living organism, I am referring to DNA by itself
without a system of selection acting on it." Since the issue is how a blueprint/assembly instruction/working factory creates all the different life forms on this planet I don't see the validity of what your trying to prove by removing the origin of the DNA/RNA molecule from living systems,except to try "reduce it to just another molecule".Anyhow these facts below speak against that postion.quote:
Professor Adleman, co-inventor of the RSA
encryption scheme which protects most secure
transactions on the internet today, was
exploiting the advantages of DNA computing
over conventional silicon.
DNA stores a massive amount of data in a
small space. Its effective density is roughly
100,000 times greater than modern hard disks.
And while a desktop PC concentrates on doing
one task at a time very quickly, billions of DNA
molecules in a jar will attack the same problem
billions of times over.
Professor Shapiro and his team have taken a
different approach.
Their goal was not to harness the power of
biological computing to solve weighty
mathematical problems, but to build a
nanoscale computer which takes naturally
occurring information-bearing biological
molecules such as DNA as an input.
Their success in creating a nanomachine that
works on synthetically produced short DNA
strands is a huge step towards this goal.
Mathematical inspiration
DNA computing research was inspired by the
similarity between the way DNA works and the
operation of a theoretical device known as a
Turing machine and named after the British
mathematician Alan Turing.
"Turing machines process information and store
them as a sequence, or list of symbols, which
is very naturally related to the way biological
machinery works," Professor Shapiro said.
The nanomachine devised by his team is a
special case of the Turing machine: a
two-state, two-symbol automaton.
It distinguishes between two symbols, like the
zeroes and ones of a conventional electronic
computer.
The Israeli team's DNA computer is described in
more detail in the journal Nature.
See also:
10 Sep 01 | Sci/Tech
Processing power of
single cells
03 Sep 01 | Sci/Tech
Visions of a wired
future
12 Jan 00 | Sci/Tech
DNA computers take
shape
Internet links:
Nature
Weizmann Institute
Ehud Shapiro
DNA computing (Ars
Technica)
The BBC is not responsible for
the content of external
internet sites
Top Sci/Tech stories
now:
Astronomy's next big
thing
Ancient rock points to
life's origin
Mobile spam on the
rise
Giant telescope
project gets boost
New hope for Aids
vaccine
Replace your mouse
with your eye
Device could detect
overdose drugs
Wireless internet
arrives in China
Links to more Sci/Tech
stories are at the foot
of the page.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1668415.stm) |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 03/07/2003 19:23:13 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2003 : 19:47:35 [Permalink]
|
DA emphasized:quote:
DNA stores a massive amount of data in a
small space. Its effective density is roughly
100,000 times greater than modern hard disks.
And while a desktop PC concentrates on doing
one task at a time very quickly, billions of DNA
molecules in a jar will attack the same problem
billions of times over.
andquote:
"Turing machines process information and store
them as a sequence, or list of symbols, which
is very naturally related to the way biological
machinery works," Professor Shapiro said.
But these two paragraphs analogize DNA to things other than DNA. This leaves you open to the "classical Humean objection to design," since your argument now "depend[s] upon an analogy between the features of human artifacts". |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 08:28:13 [Permalink]
|
DA,quote:
It seems you have a very strange understanding of what random and redundant is.Again you first claimed that Sagan "agreed" with your strange account of DNA then after I pointed out you don't get libraries of info from random/redundant sources you changed your tune and said,"Sagan is referring to DNA in a living organism, I am referring to DNA by itself
without a system of selection acting on it."
You are a blatant liar. A quick recap will show that I have never changed my tune:
1st post on page 2, my first post on this thread:
My description of DNA by itself:
It [DNA] is a chain of bases that appear in random order and undergoes spontaneous random changes (mutations). Those four bases repeat themselves over and over and over in a random/redundant pattern not much different than the patterns of a snow flake.
and a couple of paragraphs down as I continue my description of DNA
My description of DNA under a system of selection in a living cell:
So what you have is a totally natural molecule based on random repeating units undergoing totally natural chemical reactions. Select certain strands over others based on their ability to out-reproduce the other strands and you have basic evolution via natural selection. Scatter it all over the world in all sorts of different environments and all sorts of interesting "patterns" of those repeating bases start to appear.
and finally
Sagan's quote (emphasis mine):
It is clear, then that the sequence of rungs on our DNA ladders represents an enormous library of information....
Sagan again for the 3rd/4th/5th time (I don't know I lost count), is referring to our DNA, or DNA in our cells under a system of selection and his statement directly agrees with my description of DNA under a system of selection in a living cell.
By the way my definitions of random and redundant as it applies to the bases of DNA are as follows:
Random: Appearing in a non specific fashion with no ability to predict what the next unit will be.
Redundant: Repeating identical units (in this case the four bases) over and over.
As I demonstrated above, DNA that is purely random and redundant does appear in nature and an average organism has a higher percentage of this type of DNA than it has of DNA that codes for specific products. In fact in humans ~97% of our DNA is non-coding and thus contains no specific information. So my strange account of DNA as you put it, describes ~97% of the DNA in our own genome. I am describing the majority of DNA you find in all eukaryotes when I say DNA not under selection is random and redundant. I am describing the other DNA that does contain information for specific products when I describe DNA under selection.quote:
Since the issue is how a blueprint/assembly instruction/working factory creates all the different life forms on this planet I don't see the validity of what your trying to prove by removing the origin of the DNA/RNA molecule from living systems,except to try "reduce it to just another molecule".
Quite simply the process of selection acting on the self-replicating template (DNA/RNA) is the best and most parsimonious explanation for how genetic information diverges to create all of the different life forms on this planet. I have said this over and over as well and given evidence to support my claims, but you ignore it and fail to address it.
The process of selection acting on a replicating template has been demonstrated to produce information in the template to code for specific products when those products are selected for.
This is not hard to understand and your continued evasion of the point leaves me to again question your sincerity in this discussion. Combine that with the fact that you continuously distort my position to the point of blatant lying and it is pretty clear you are not serious in what you post.quote:
Anyhow these facts below speak against that postion.
Only if one ignores the process of selection as you do. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
