Is god a code monkey?

[Kilgore Trout]

There's a good job that who we would call god is actually a programmer of sorts, considering the fact that there's a pretty good argument that it's more likely our universe is a simulation than a naturally occurring universe. The general gist of which is: if a species in any naturally occurring universe attains the technological sophistication to construct and run complex simulations of other universes, then naturally it is likely they will run a very large number of these. In which case, any individual universe is more likely to be a simulation run in another universe, than one that naturally arose.

 

[Sir Doom]

I could have sworn suckling was considered instinctual. I can't remember where I heard that, but it really seems true.

 

[savagewind]

I could have sworn suckling was considered instinctual. I can't remember where I heard that, but it really seems true.

They call it a reflex. Reflexes are simple and so cannot be "complex behavior" which are instincts. That is what I learned on RF this week.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think the potato washing Macaque monkey on Koshima is rather interesting. Was washing food an instinct in Imo? How come they didn't do it before, and how come Imo started a cultural trend among the monkeys? Hmm... Man is so unique because we wash our potato, just like monkeys on Koshima island.

 

[Sir Doom]

How about chimp warfare?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/science/22chimp.html?_r=0

 

[Ouroboros]

How about chimp warfare?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/science/22chimp.html?_r=0

Like one of my anthropology teachers said, "I wish we'd evolved from the bonobos instead."

 

[johnhanks]

Like one of my anthropology teachers said, "I wish we'd evolved from the bonobos instead."

I can't believe your anthropology teacher was suggesting we evolved from the other kind of chimp.

 

[rusra02]

Would an almighty, all powerful, all knowing being, create a whole universe by specifically tailoring every single entity in it? Wouldn't that be a pretty simple minded way of achieving things?

Say we're talking about a computer programmer. Which would you be more impressed by?
a) One that spends his whole life manually writing millions of simple, programs each serving one function.
b) One that writes one relatively simple program, or even a simple mathematic formula, capable of automatically and continuously generating new and improved programs of infinite variety and complexity.

I dunno. I think the code in DNA is pretty elegant. In fact, no human programmer has produced anything like it. A person who claims a piece of software just happened is rightly dismissed. How much more those who claim DNA happened by a chance collection of molecules.

 

[Ouroboros]

I can't believe your anthropology teacher was suggesting we evolved from the other kind of chimp.

It was a joke.

We're closer relatives to chimps than bonobos. Bonobos are a lot less violent. They have sex instead.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Would an almighty, all powerful, all knowing being, create a whole universe by specifically tailoring every single entity in it? Wouldn't that be a pretty simple minded way of achieving things?

Say we're talking about a computer programmer. Which would you be more impressed by?
a) One that spends his whole life manually writing millions of simple, programs each serving one function.
b) One that writes one relatively simple program, or even a simple mathematic formula, capable of automatically and continuously generating new and improved programs of infinite variety and complexity.

Hmmmm? Man trying to figure out how God operates in human terms. Good luck with that.

 

[freethinker44]

I dunno. I think the code in DNA is pretty elegant. In fact, no human programmer has produced anything like it. A person who claims a piece of software just happened is rightly dismissed. How much more those who claim DNA happened by a chance collection of molecules.

The only people who say anything about evolution happening by chance are creationists.

 

[savagewind]

The only people who say anything about evolution happening by chance are creationists.

I think that is not what he meant. The powers that where agents in the development of LIFE are nothing like the elements that developed into all that we see. All that we see is made up of millions of materials combined in trillions of ways. On the one hand there is space, energy, light and I don't know what else, casting their influence on whatever substance is present also. THAT is what people mean when they say "fat chance". OK? My hope is someday this stupid argument is laid to rest.

 

[Breathe]

Would an almighty, all powerful, all knowing being, create a whole universe by specifically tailoring every single entity in it?

[...]

Probably not.
Then again, I accept evolution. (And God.)

It means it is the only behavior shown to be instinctive.

Depending on the definition of instinctive, aren't laughing, smiling, suckling, blushing, yawning, altruism, and/or shivering instinctive?

How does the fact one can struggle to acquire language after a certain period of time factor into it being instinct? (Not like I believe in the Language Acquisition Device, though, mind you)

 

[johnhanks]

I dunno. I think the code in DNA is pretty elegant.

No argument there. It's so elegant its replication mechanism is just imperfect enough to allow evolution to happen.

Let me ask you two questions.

1. If you could measure the DNA base sequence of a population of animals at time 0, then were able to do the same for that population's descendants a million generations later, do you think you'd find the sequences hadn't changed?
2. If in fact they had changed over that time, what mechanism would have prevented them from becoming the code for a completely different "kind" of animal?

 

[rusra02]

No argument there. It's so elegant its replication mechanism is just imperfect enough to allow evolution to happen.

Let me ask you two questions.

1. If you could measure the DNA base sequence of a population of animals at time 0, then were able to do the same for that population's descendants a million generations later, do you think you'd find the sequences hadn't changed?
2. If in fact they had changed over that time, what mechanism would have prevented them from becoming the code for a completely different "kind" of animal?

1. Yes
2. DNA is so wonderfully designed, it reproduces with amazing fidelity.

 

[secret2]

1. Yes
2. DNA is so wonderfully designed, it reproduces with amazing fidelity.

...and that's how to dodge a question.

 

[johnhanks]

1. Yes
2. DNA is so wonderfully designed, it reproduces with amazing fidelity.

...and that's how to dodge a question.

No, he hasn't dodged it, he's just got it catastrophically wrong. That gene pools (read: DNA sequences) change over time is no-one's opinion, it's observable and very well documented fact.

The salient question remains: what is the mechanism that prevents a population's genome from becoming that of a different "kind"? If ACGTTAGGCATTC were to represent a Persian cat's genome, ACGTTAGCGATTC a Siamese's, and and ATCATAAGTTAGG a dog's, rusra02 would probably have no problem accepting that over time ACGTTAGGCATTC (Persian) could change to ACGTTAGCGATTC (Siamese). What mechanism is there to stop it changing to ATCATAAGTTAGG (dog)?

 

[rusra02]

No, he hasn't dodged it, he's just got it catastrophically wrong. That gene pools (read: DNA sequences) change over time is no-one's opinion, it's observable and very well documented fact.

The salient question remains: what is the mechanism that prevents a population's genome from becoming that of a different "kind"? If ACGTTAGGCATTC were to represent a Persian cat's genome, ACGTTAGCGATTC a Siamese's, and and ATCATAAGTTAGG a dog's, rusra02 would probably have no problem accepting that over time ACGTTAGGCATTC (Persian) could change to ACGTTAGCGATTC (Siamese). What mechanism is there to stop it changing to ATCATAAGTTAGG (dog)?

The great Designer allowed for variation within kinds, but decreed limits or boundaries. No one has successfully crossed those boundaries. Thus, a dog will always be a dog, and a cat, a cat.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The great Designer allowed for variation within kinds, but decreed limits or boundaries.

Now, follow to the obvious question: why?

 

[savagewind]

Now, follow to the obvious question: why?

May I make a suggestion please? The reason might be so there will always exist the variety of life that makes the earth whole. If the rule that everything should remain in it's own kind was not present then what would prevent everything eventually becoming the same?