So you say I don't understand Evolution. Really?

[Ouroboros]

and yet man is designed by nature, and man designs the programs for computer operation. Are you suggesting that all computer programmers are very sloppy, and incompetent?

No. That's a non sequitur.

Take parents to kids. A parent is a drug user. You are suggesting with your logic that all their kids must be drug users as well, no exception. And their kids as well. And their kids. In other words, once a drug user, all generations from there on must be drug users. It doesn't follow that one leads to another.

 

[Riverwolf]

and yet man is designed by nature

No, we're not.

 

[KnobofBel]

No, we're not.

well perhaps you are right. who needs dna anyway.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no evidence whatsoever that DNA was purposefully designed. And I very much doubt it was.

 

[KnobofBel]

There is no evidence whatsoever that DNA was purposefully designed. And I very much doubt it was.

It is natural, it creates man. Good looking finding any one thing not of this sequence that determines your creation.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is natural, it creates man. Good looking finding any one thing not of this sequence that determines your creation.

Can you rephrase that last statement. I'm a bit confused of what you're actually saying.

I know that my "creation" was the result of some funny stuff my parents did about 50 years ago. I can't say if it was in a backseat of a car or not, but that's how I started.

 

[KnobofBel]

Can you rephrase that last statement. I'm a bit confused of what you're actually saying.

I know that my "creation" was the result of some funny stuff my parents did about 50 years ago. I can't say if it was in a backseat of a car or not, but that's how I started.

Are you asserting that sperm fertilizing the egg, is of no consequence? Never mind me rephrasing...perhaps a look into the mechanism that created you is due?

 

[Ouroboros]

Are you asserting that sperm fertilizing the egg, is of no consequence? Never mind me rephrasing...perhaps a look into the mechanism that created you is due?

You have a very odd way of putting things. I'm not quite sure what you're after.

To help you out, my view is that evolution is true and that genetics to a large extent controls your body plan. However, epigenetics, environmental factors, diet, and so on will of course also affect the outcome. Also, "who you are" is a question that falls into the philosophical domain, and brings up questions about your experience, culture, upbringing, and so on. Many things played into my "creation". And the genes are, as you say, "designed" by nature. However, the terms "creation" and "designed" suggest intent. Nature might have intent, or it might not. It's not something we can say for sure. We know the mechanics, but we don't know if there's goal or Final Cause in play.

 

[Riverwolf]

well perhaps you are right. who needs dna anyway.

DNA is not evidence of any kind of design.

It's a molecule, like any other molecule. It's also present in all known life, not just humanity, which means that if it were designed, humanity isn't special.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is natural, it creates man. Good looking finding any one thing not of this sequence that determines your creation.

I really have a hard time attempting to understand what you mean here. The one clear thing is that you are set on assuming a creator.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

By the way, I'm a software engineer. I started programming 35 years ago, and I have programmed in 40+ different languages, including machine code, 20 different databases, and on most computer systems you've ever heard about, and even some you haven't. I taught in computer science in the 80's. And much more.

Speaking from my very deep experience, what I see in nature compare to programming is that nature is a made by a very, very sloppy and incompetent programmer. Someone who has taken spaghetti code to 'nother level entirely. Nature isn't programmed like a regular computer program, but it resembles the trial-and-error approach quite a bit. It actually looks very much like how evolutionary algorithms turn out (which I've used as well) when you use them. So when I look at nature, I see a world "designed" by an evolutionary or genetic algorithm, not by someone with intent.

So... no. It doesn't look like a "Design Engineering Programming" in "creation" at all. It only does so to amateurs.

But if you insist on it being engineered, give me UML or SysML specs on it. It shouldn't be hard since it's just a matter of reverse engineering.

That is simply lying, that the dna programming is sloppy. Something wrong with your attitude there.

Note how the universe has 4 main parameters of time, space, mass and charge, dna has 4 bases CATG, and 3D computer graphics also uses objects with 4 parameters as it's main unit.

 

[Kirran]

That is simply lying, that the dna programming is sloppy. Something wrong with your attitude there.

Note how the universe has 4 main parameters of time, space, mass and charge, dna has 4 bases CATG, and 3D computer graphics also uses objects with 4 parameters as it's main unit.

Actually the genetic code is variously redundant, not best suited to a wide variety of conditions, and its associated machinery massively error-prone.

 

[Ouroboros]

Actually the genetic code is variously redundant, not best suited to a wide variety of conditions, and its associated machinery massively error-prone.

Yup. We have many multiple copies of the same genes. There are thousands of synonymous mutations that don't change the peptide. I'm not sure I agree that it's massively error-prone. It's filled of unused and redundancy, for sure, and it does mutate occasionally, but that's the interesting part. The redundancy and synonymity of codons makes reduces the errors as the end result. That's the interesting part. It's flaws is what makes the end result less error-prone. It's like thinking about how the best method would be to hit a difficult target? If you pepper it with a million shots, at least one will hit. That's kind'a how it works. It's a form of overkill method. Using a bazooka to swat a fly.

 

[Kirran]

Yup. We have many multiple copies of the same genes. There are thousands of synonymous mutations that don't change the peptide. I'm not sure I agree that it's massively error-prone. It's filled of unused and redundancy, for sure, and it does mutate occasionally, but that's the interesting part. The redundancy and synonymity of codons makes reduces the errors as the end result. That's the interesting part. It's flaws is what makes the end result less error-prone. It's like thinking about how the best method would be to hit a difficult target? If you pepper it with a million shots, at least one will hit. That's kind'a how it works. It's a form of overkill method. Using a bazooka to swat a fly.

Fair enough. I just mean that mutations causing cancers, as well as hereditary mutations and various genetic diseases and so on, happen pretty commonly.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is simply lying, that the dna programming is sloppy. Something wrong with your attitude there.

Calling my a liar doesn't show any problem with my attitude but with yours.

Normally, I have you on ignore and can't even see what you're saying. Today, I decided to take a look. And I saw this. The one with a serious attitude problem is you, and that's the reason I'll keep you on ignore.

Note how the universe has 4 main parameters of time, space, mass and charge,

Now, who's the liar?

\
dna has 4 bases CATG,

Wrong. There are actually 5.

Purines: Adenin and Guanine.
Pyrimidines: Cytosin, Uracil, Thymine.

Look it up. So who's lying again?

and 3D computer graphics also uses objects with 4 parameters as it's main unit.

Uh... what? Name them. What 4 parameters do they use for their "main unit"? Are you talking about the address bus, data bus, control bus, and something else, or are you talking about the parameters for the actual function calls or the op-calls? You know, I was a professional computer technician and software engineer for a very long time and even built some stuff. I even wrote code on machine language level up to high level language. So... you're barking up the wrong tree.

You're going back on my ignore list.

 

[Ouroboros]

Fair enough. I just mean that mutations causing cancers, as well as hereditary mutations and various genetic diseases and so on, happen pretty commonly.

Yes. Absolutely.

I've seen different statistics on how many mutations each one of us carry. And I've seen some saying that every other person has a unique mutation, but others say we all have several. I also read somewhere that we all develop cancer cells at least 20 times in our life, but in the majority of those cases, our body will absorb or destroy the cell before it becomes maligned.

But you did get me to realize that the "sloppiness" of the DNA is what makes it work and avoid a large portion of problems. That's quite interesting. The redundancy (duplication) helps when single mutations destroy a gene. One is destroyed, but the other 50 copies are okay.

 

[Kirran]

Yes. Absolutely.

I've seen different statistics on how many mutations each one of us carry. And I've seen some saying that every other person has a unique mutation, but others say we all have several. I also read somewhere that we all develop cancer cells at least 20 times in our life, but in the majority of those cases, our body will absorb or destroy the cell before it becomes maligned.

But you did get me to realize that the "sloppiness" of the DNA is what makes it work and avoid a large portion of problems. That's quite interesting. The redundancy (duplication) helps when single mutations destroy a gene. One is destroyed, but the other 50 copies are okay.

Also, it depends on the organism. Some species have much higher mutation rates, partly because DNA isn't very well-suited to environments frequented by some extremophiles. Design flaw.

 

[David M]

I've seen different statistics on how many mutations each one of us carry. And I've seen some saying that every other person has a unique mutation, but others say we all have several.

Latest research places the figure at an average of 60 mutations at fertilisation that are not possesed by our parents.

 

[Ouroboros]

Latest research places the figure at an average of 60 mutations at fertilisation that are not possesed by our parents.

Wow! Really? It's 60... again Wow!... it blows my mind.

Just a few years ago, the estimate was every second person only. Before that, it was like a handful in each generation. But I had a feeling that it must be more than that.

Thanks for the update.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe it is happening more often?