Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: I've read things you people wouldn't believe. Spacial narratives foregrounding biopower. I learned about discursive foodways being written on the body. All those insights will be lost after comprehensives, like tears in rain. Time to die.

Topic: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software (Read 993 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software

Quote
World J Biol Chem. 2014 Aug 26; 5(3): 275-278.
Published online 2014 Aug 26. doi:  10.4331/wjbc.v5.i3.275
PMCID: PMC4160521
Life is more than a computer running DNA software
František Baluška and Guenther Witzany

Are cellular organisms only robot-like computing machines that function strictly according to their algorithm-based programming? Or, rather, are they coordinated complex entities that share bio-communication properties that may vary according to different context-specific needs? Is DNA the unequivocal syntax for sequences out of which one can construct living cells, viruses and phages for a household appliance? Or is the superficial molecular syntax of DNA solely the result of evolution's long inserts and deletions of an abundance of various genetic parasites that shape host genomes? The most crucial questions are: do DNA sequences contain a hidden deep grammar structure that varies according to the meaning and context of environmental insults; do DNA sequences match with high fidelity environmental circumstances that led to epigenetic markings and memory? If yes, this would then mean that the identical DNA sequence may have various-even contradictory-meanings. In fact, this scenario is emerging as true[4-8].

EPIGENETICS: HIDDEN DEEP GRAMMAR
Interestingly, in complex genomes like humans, the coding genes are about 1.5% of the total genome whereas the abundance of non-coding RNAs are about 98.5%. This means Craig Venter's household appliance box could focus only on the 1.5% coding sequences. The DNA sequences of genomes do not represent 1:1 depictions of unequivocal coding structures such as genes, but in light of the variety of epigenetic markings-with its executives RNA editing and alternative splicing-can store a multitude of further meanings[4-8].

This means epigenetic marking saves energy costs like in human language. A limited repertoire of signs, and a limited number of rules to combine these signs correctly, enables signs using agents to generate an unlimited number of sentences with a superficial grammar in the visible text and an abundance of connotations by marking through gestures and other conscious and unconscious bodily expressions such as the movements of three hundred different eye muscles[9].

...

Therefore, DNA organized in chromatin is far more complex than the human-made "software system", except that we are confusing the algorithm-based simulation of real-life storage with the real life, the computer machines with the living cells and organisms, and the self-reproducing automatons with the real-life organisms that can replicate since the origins of life[5,9,14].

...

The genome itself, via natural genome editing[19], generates large amounts of coherent new sequences and inserts these into DNA genomes without damaging essential protein-coding regions. This is not possible for any human-made software.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4160521/

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #1
So this idea that the Designer of biological software was a crappy designed is just nuts.

"Biological software" is so much more sophisticated than human created software that it makes your head spin.

How can anyone be so arrogant as to declare that it's "crappily designed" ??  You aren't anywhere close to even understanding it, much less being in a position to critique it.

Peh Ahlberg once told me ... "Understand.  Then criticize."

He's right.

  • Pingu
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #2
So this idea that the Designer of biological software was a crappy designed is just nuts.

"Biological software" is so much more sophisticated than human created software that it makes your head spin.

It isn't software.

And it isn't designed.

So it isn't "crappily designed software".


How can anyone be so arrogant as to declare that it's "crappily designed" ??  You aren't anywhere close to even understanding it, much less being in a position to critique it.

Viewed as human software, it is crappily designed.

But it is neither. One of the reasons we know it is neither is that it isn't the way anyone would design it, and it isn't software. 



Peh Ahlberg once told me ... "Understand.  Then criticize."

He's right.

He is.  So shut the fuck up until you've understood.

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #3
I'm so sick of this idiotic argument:

IDist: look at all that brilliant software in the cell!  It must be designed!
The rest of us: well, no human software designer would design an information system like that.  If a human did anything like that, we'd think they were crappy designers. 
IDist: how can you say it's crappy software!  It's FAR more sophisiticated than human software! 
The rest of us: Exactly.  It's nothing like anything a designer would do. However, the features that it has that a designer would avoid are exactly what you would expect from evolutionary processes.  Evolutionary processes are far better than designers at producing very sophisticated optimisations, which is why sometimes we actually use them instead of human designers.
IDist: But look at all that brilliant software in the cell!  It must be designed....
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #4

Quote
World J Biol Chem. 2014 Aug 26; 5(3): 275-278.
Published online 2014 Aug 26. doi:  10.4331/wjbc.v5.i3.275
PMCID: PMC4160521
Life is more than a computer running DNA software
František Baluška and Guenther Witzany

Are cellular organisms only robot-like computing machines that function strictly according to their algorithm-based programming? Or, rather, are they coordinated complex entities that share bio-communication properties that may vary according to different context-specific needs? Is DNA the unequivocal syntax for sequences out of which one can construct living cells, viruses and phages for a household appliance? Or is the superficial molecular syntax of DNA solely the result of evolution's long inserts and deletions of an abundance of various genetic parasites that shape host genomes? The most crucial questions are: do DNA sequences contain a hidden deep grammar structure that varies according to the meaning and context of environmental insults; do DNA sequences match with high fidelity environmental circumstances that led to epigenetic markings and memory? If yes, this would then mean that the identical DNA sequence may have various-even contradictory-meanings. In fact, this scenario is emerging as true[4-8].

EPIGENETICS: HIDDEN DEEP GRAMMAR
Interestingly, in complex genomes like humans, the coding genes are about 1.5% of the total genome whereas the abundance of non-coding RNAs are about 98.5%. This means Craig Venter's household appliance box could focus only on the 1.5% coding sequences. The DNA sequences of genomes do not represent 1:1 depictions of unequivocal coding structures such as genes, but in light of the variety of epigenetic markings-with its executives RNA editing and alternative splicing-can store a multitude of further meanings[4-8].

This means epigenetic marking saves energy costs like in human language. A limited repertoire of signs, and a limited number of rules to combine these signs correctly, enables signs using agents to generate an unlimited number of sentences with a superficial grammar in the visible text and an abundance of connotations by marking through gestures and other conscious and unconscious bodily expressions such as the movements of three hundred different eye muscles[9].

...

Therefore, DNA organized in chromatin is far more complex than the human-made "software system", except that we are confusing the algorithm-based simulation of real-life storage with the real life, the computer machines with the living cells and organisms, and the self-reproducing automatons with the real-life organisms that can replicate since the origins of life[5,9,14].

...

The genome itself, via natural genome editing[19], generates large amounts of coherent new sequences and inserts these into DNA genomes without damaging essential protein-coding regions. This is not possible for any human-made software.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4160521/

Congratulations on your own-goal!   :golfclap:  :banana:  :cheer:  :happydance:  :cheer:  :banana:  :golfclap:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #5
I'm so sick of this idiotic argument:

IDist: look at all that brilliant software in the cell!  It must be designed!
The rest of us: well, no human software designer would design an information system like that.  If a human did anything like that, we'd think they were crappy designers. 
IDist: how can you say it's crappy software!  It's FAR more sophisiticated than human software! 
The rest of us: Exactly.  It's nothing like anything a designer would do. However, the features that it has that a designer would avoid are exactly what you would expect from evolutionary processes.  Evolutionary processes are far better than designers at producing very sophisticated optimisations, which is why sometimes we actually use them instead of human designers.
IDist: But look at all that brilliant software in the cell!  It must be designed....
Exactly what we would expect from evolutionary processes (that is, RM + NS, let's be honest) my ass. Such bullshit.  R m + n s as a mechanism for generating all the biological diversity that we see has been scrapped onto the ash heap of theories. You have absolutely no effing idea how this diversity came about.

 you say

"Viewed as human software, it is crappily designed.

But it is neither. One of the reasons we know it is neither is that it isn't the way anyone would design it, and it isn't software."

But you're only thinking about humans with their limited brain power.

So you are literally like the African bush man who picks up a coke bottle and says " this is a poorly designed club"

You are wallowing in ignorance while pretending to be knowledgeable enough to judge biological software.

In other words, you are an idiot.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #6
You are wallowing in ignorance while pretending to be knowledgeable enough to judge biological software.
Dave.

Get a grip.

You have never cracked a book on introductory genetics.
You are in no position to opine about others' "ignorance" on the subject.
  • Last Edit: February 24, 2018, 05:31:15 AM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #7
I guess a Dave found a new shiny.

It's funny, his post with the nerfgun was actually an ideal opportunity to show the difference between designed things and evolved things......and Dave missed it entirely.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • Sea Star
  • Not an octohatter
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #8
I guess a Dave found a new shiny.

It's funny, his post with the nerfgun was actually an ideal opportunity to show the difference between designed things and evolved things......and Dave missed it entirely.
Of course he did.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Today at 07:50:40 AM
Lol
Sea Star has been trolling me this whole time.

  • Pingu
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #9
I'm so sick of this idiotic argument:

IDist: look at all that brilliant software in the cell!  It must be designed!
The rest of us: well, no human software designer would design an information system like that.  If a human did anything like that, we'd think they were crappy designers. 
IDist: how can you say it's crappy software!  It's FAR more sophisiticated than human software! 
The rest of us: Exactly.  It's nothing like anything a designer would do. However, the features that it has that a designer would avoid are exactly what you would expect from evolutionary processes.  Evolutionary processes are far better than designers at producing very sophisticated optimisations, which is why sometimes we actually use them instead of human designers.
IDist: But look at all that brilliant software in the cell!  It must be designed....
Exactly what we would expect from evolutionary processes (that is, RM + NS, let's be honest) my ass. Such bullshit.  R m + n s as a mechanism for generating all the biological diversity that we see has been scrapped onto the ash heap of theories. You have absolutely no effing idea how this diversity came about.

Well, you don't, that's for sure.  You know bugger all, Yet you think you know more than Shapiro.


 you say

"Viewed as human software, it is crappily designed.

But it is neither. One of the reasons we know it is neither is that it isn't the way anyone would design it, and it isn't software."

But you're only thinking about humans with their limited brain power.


And limited time.  As I said, biological organisms differ in really important wasy from how any designer we know of i.e. humans and possible some smart animals, design things.  They show evidence of a quite different set of limitations. 

So you are literally like the African bush man who picks up a coke bottle and says " this is a poorly designed club"

No.  You are apparently too stupid even to read my posts. 


You are wallowing in ignorance while pretending to be knowledgeable enough to judge biological software.

In other words, you are an idiot.

no u
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #10
You are wallowing in ignorance while pretending to be knowledgeable enough to judge biological software.
Dave.

Get a grip.

You have never cracked a book on introductory genetics.
not quite true, but I know what you are getting at. And what you are getting at is irrelevant and here's why...

There are plenty of people who have cracked these sorts of introductory textbooks and gone much further an example of which I quoted this morning. These people are making the point that Craig Venter is basing his project upon his knowledge of a only about 1.5% of the human genome.

I've got news for you... Any fourth grader whether he has cracked an introductory textbook on genetics or not... Can observe that a person who proclaims that something is poorly designed when they don't have the first clue about 98.5% of it ...

Is just about the best textbook example of arrogance combined with stupidity that you can find anywhere.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #11
You are wallowing in ignorance while pretending to be knowledgeable enough to judge biological software.
Dave.

Get a grip.

You have never cracked a book on introductory genetics.
not quite true, but I know what you are getting at. And what you are getting at is irrelevant and here's why...

There are plenty of people who have cracked these sorts of introductory textbooks and gone much further an example of which I quoted this morning. These people are making the point that Craig Venter is basing his project upon his knowledge of a only about 1.5% of the human genome.

I've got news for you... Any fourth grader whether he has cracked an introductory textbook on genetics or not... Can observe that a person who proclaims that something is poorly designed when they don't have the first clue about 98.5% of it ...

Is just about the best textbook example of arrogance combined with stupidity that you can find anywhere.
This is just about the best textbook example of a strawman argument (combined with Hawkins-grade arrogance and stupidity)  you can find anywhere.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #12

Quote
World J Biol Chem. 2014 Aug 26; 5(3): 275-278.
Published online 2014 Aug 26. doi:  10.4331/wjbc.v5.i3.275
PMCID: PMC4160521
Life is more than a computer running DNA software
František Baluška and Guenther Witzany

Are cellular organisms only robot-like computing machines that function strictly according to their algorithm-based programming? Or, rather, are they coordinated complex entities that share bio-communication properties that may vary according to different context-specific needs? Is DNA the unequivocal syntax for sequences out of which one can construct living cells, viruses and phages for a household appliance? Or is the superficial molecular syntax of DNA solely the result of evolution's long inserts and deletions of an abundance of various genetic parasites that shape host genomes? The most crucial questions are: do DNA sequences contain a hidden deep grammar structure that varies according to the meaning and context of environmental insults; do DNA sequences match with high fidelity environmental circumstances that led to epigenetic markings and memory? If yes, this would then mean that the identical DNA sequence may have various-even contradictory-meanings. In fact, this scenario is emerging as true[4-8].

EPIGENETICS: HIDDEN DEEP GRAMMAR
Interestingly, in complex genomes like humans, the coding genes are about 1.5% of the total genome whereas the abundance of non-coding RNAs are about 98.5%. This means Craig Venter's household appliance box could focus only on the 1.5% coding sequences. The DNA sequences of genomes do not represent 1:1 depictions of unequivocal coding structures such as genes, but in light of the variety of epigenetic markings-with its executives RNA editing and alternative splicing-can store a multitude of further meanings[4-8].

This means epigenetic marking saves energy costs like in human language. A limited repertoire of signs, and a limited number of rules to combine these signs correctly, enables signs using agents to generate an unlimited number of sentences with a superficial grammar in the visible text and an abundance of connotations by marking through gestures and other conscious and unconscious bodily expressions such as the movements of three hundred different eye muscles[9].

...

Therefore, DNA organized in chromatin is far more complex than the human-made "software system", except that we are confusing the algorithm-based simulation of real-life storage with the real life, the computer machines with the living cells and organisms, and the self-reproducing automatons with the real-life organisms that can replicate since the origins of life[5,9,14].

...

The genome itself, via natural genome editing[19], generates large amounts of coherent new sequences and inserts these into DNA genomes without damaging essential protein-coding regions. This is not possible for any human-made software.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4160521/
The best designs are simple.
Complexity is a sign of bad design.
Simplicity is hard. Complexity is something that happens if you don't prevent it.

Also, this
Quote
The genome itself, via natural genome editing[19], generates large amounts of coherent new sequences and inserts these into DNA genomes without damaging essential protein-coding regions. This is not possible for any human-made software.
is nonsense. Software used to work like that, it turned out be be a spectacularly bad idea. We stopped doing it that way.
  • Last Edit: February 24, 2018, 06:09:48 AM by Saunt Taunga

  • Pingu
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #13
You are wallowing in ignorance while pretending to be knowledgeable enough to judge biological software.
Dave.

Get a grip.

You have never cracked a book on introductory genetics.
not quite true, but I know what you are getting at. And what you are getting at is irrelevant and here's why...

There are plenty of people who have cracked these sorts of introductory textbooks and gone much further an example of which I quoted this morning. These people are making the point that Craig Venter is basing his project upon his knowledge of a only about 1.5% of the human genome.

I've got news for you... Any fourth grader whether he has cracked an introductory textbook on genetics or not... Can observe that a person who proclaims that something is poorly designed when they don't have the first clue about 98.5% of it ...

Is just about the best textbook example of arrogance combined with stupidity that you can find anywhere.

Nobody said it was poorly designed.  They said that that biological cells aren't designed in the way a human software designer would design something equivalent.   Leaving aside for now the bad "software" analogy (neither the genome nor the cell are software - it's a very loose analogy), the point is that humans are limited and so is evolution.  But they are limited in different ways. What we see in biology has limitations that are not intrinsic to human designers.  Human designs have limitations that are not intrinsic to evolution.

So to a human, biology looks like "bad software" (a bit).  To a biologist, human software looks clumsy and crude.

But you are so blinkered by your ignorant DaveHasToBeRightism that you don't have the first clue about either.  Or the point anyone else is making.
  • Last Edit: February 24, 2018, 06:10:58 AM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Sea Star
  • Not an octohatter
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #14
You are wallowing in ignorance while pretending to be knowledgeable enough to judge biological software.
Dave.

Get a grip.

You have never cracked a book on introductory genetics.
not quite true, but I know what you are getting at. And what you are getting at is irrelevant and here's why...

There are plenty of people who have cracked these sorts of introductory textbooks and gone much further an example of which I quoted this morning. These people are making the point that Craig Venter is basing his project upon his knowledge of a only about 1.5% of the human genome.

I've got news for you... Any fourth grader whether he has cracked an introductory textbook on genetics or not... Can observe that a person who proclaims that something is poorly designed when they don't have the first clue about 98.5% of it ...

Is just about the best textbook example of arrogance combined with stupidity that you can find anywhere.
What grade is your daughter in? Has she figured you out yet?
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Today at 07:50:40 AM
Lol
Sea Star has been trolling me this whole time.

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #15
There is a new class of software that is quite a bit more like biological systems.
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning produce things that perform functions better than if a human would design them.

Face recognition is an example.
The code that recognises faces, animals, cars, food, etc. in pictures is not designed.
It was trained.

The training consists of many repetitions of mutation and selection.
The resulting code can be inspected easily, but it is too complex to understand why it works.

Smart engineers today would (and do!) use Machine Learning for a lot of the hard stuff.

If your god was smart he would use evolution as a tool.
Is your god not smart?
  • Last Edit: February 24, 2018, 06:45:01 AM by Saunt Taunga

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #16
"Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software"?  This sounds really interesting.  Do tell. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Dave? I bet Man Can't Put As Many Angels on the Head of A Pin as God Can!

  • Pingu
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #17
Here is a quick and dirty version, Dave:

First a short preamble:

Biological organisms reproduce themselves, with variance, i.e. offspring are close enough to their parents that we can call it "reproduction" but there are always small differences.  These small variations have lots of different causes, but quite a lot of them are due to the offspring having slightly different DNA sequences to the parent.

Let's for now talk about sexually reproducing organisms to keep things simple-ish.  Sexually reproducing organism produce offspring that have some features of one parent and some features from another.  The combination itself makes them unique. But the combination at genetic level means that sometimes brand-new genetic sequences are generated.  Other mechanisms can also result in novel sequences.

Now for the main point:

As with Joe Hopping's sheep, sometimes a variant will appear with no obvious reproductive advantage or disadvantage to the organism.  Dark, slow-growing hooves for instance, instead of lighter, faster growing hooves.  Because there's no clear advantage or disadvantage, populations of these sheep will have some dark-hooved individuals and some light-hooved ones.  Then a specific population finds itself owned by Joe Hopping.  Now light hooves are seriously disadvantageous, because Hopping doesn't let them breed.  He only breeds from the dark-hooved ones.

But you know this.  You also know that this happens NATURALLY - instead of being owned by Joe Hopping, the sheep may find themselves in a very boggy environment, where their hooves don't wear down easily, and they also trap what my grandmother called gubbins.  So they tend to get infected feet.  So the dark-hooved onces have a reproductive advantage.

In other words, the population genome becomes OPTIMISED for boggy ground by dint of that population mostly bearing the dark-hooved sequence.  Rinse and repeat, over and over, and you end up with shorter/longer horns, thicker/thinner wool etc.

Great system for optimisation.  In the process lots of other not very useful variants appear.  They get weeded out if they are actually harmful, but not if they don't.  They just sit there in the population doing nothing, until the environment changes in a way that they are either useful, in which case they will become more prevalent, or disadvantageous, in which case they will become less so.  Or they may just hang around to delight us with variety.

That method of optimising a genome is not the way a human designer would do it.  There are loads of disadvantages.  You get lots of redundant code.  And you can't transfer good bits of code into other bits of code very easily to get the best of both worlds (sexual reproduction isn't a very efficient means of horizontal transfer).  And you waste a lot of sheep and time.

But it doesn't matter because you have plenty of sheep and time.

A human designer doesn't.  So a human designer has to figure out what is needed, as efficiently as possible.  She has to decide on a single solution quite quickly - she can't afford to experiment with weird and unlikely solutions of no obvious immediate benefit.  She doesn't want to write a whole bunch of redundant code. 

However, what she can do, is easily splice bits of code in from some other programme.  She can make the code quite modular in fact, and call on lots of existing functions, many developed by different teams for different purposes.  And she expects them to be easily understood and readable, and not be full of irrelevant extra stuff.

So to her, a sheep genome, even of one of Hopping's sheep, would look like "bad code".  Lots of useless stuff, some of it potentially useful for some non-obvious purpose, lots of it simple leftover junk.  And she'd find it was virtually impossible to transfer any of it to anything other than a subsequent version of the code.  No swapping anything other than tiny bits over into somebody else's code.

In other words: human software looks like it's been designed by and for human designers.  Biological genomes look like they evolved.

The first shows evidence of the limitations and non-limitations of human designers.  the second shows evidence of the limitations and non-limitations of evolution.

Which is why most people find the ID argument pretty flawed.  The very things that DON'T look like the way humans design things are the very things that are TYPICAL of things that have been optimised by evolution.  Which is a pretty good system.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #18

Quote
World J Biol Chem. 2014 Aug 26; 5(3): 275-278.
Published online 2014 Aug 26. doi:  10.4331/wjbc.v5.i3.275
PMCID: PMC4160521
Life is more than a computer running DNA software
František Baluška and Guenther Witzany

Are cellular organisms only robot-like computing machines that function strictly according to their algorithm-based programming? Or, rather, are they coordinated complex entities that share bio-communication properties that may vary according to different context-specific needs? Is DNA the unequivocal syntax for sequences out of which one can construct living cells, viruses and phages for a household appliance? Or is the superficial molecular syntax of DNA solely the result of evolution's long inserts and deletions of an abundance of various genetic parasites that shape host genomes? The most crucial questions are: do DNA sequences contain a hidden deep grammar structure that varies according to the meaning and context of environmental insults; do DNA sequences match with high fidelity environmental circumstances that led to epigenetic markings and memory? If yes, this would then mean that the identical DNA sequence may have various-even contradictory-meanings. In fact, this scenario is emerging as true[4-8].

EPIGENETICS: HIDDEN DEEP GRAMMAR
Interestingly, in complex genomes like humans, the coding genes are about 1.5% of the total genome whereas the abundance of non-coding RNAs are about 98.5%. This means Craig Venter's household appliance box could focus only on the 1.5% coding sequences. The DNA sequences of genomes do not represent 1:1 depictions of unequivocal coding structures such as genes, but in light of the variety of epigenetic markings-with its executives RNA editing and alternative splicing-can store a multitude of further meanings[4-8].

This means epigenetic marking saves energy costs like in human language. A limited repertoire of signs, and a limited number of rules to combine these signs correctly, enables signs using agents to generate an unlimited number of sentences with a superficial grammar in the visible text and an abundance of connotations by marking through gestures and other conscious and unconscious bodily expressions such as the movements of three hundred different eye muscles[9].

...

Therefore, DNA organized in chromatin is far more complex than the human-made "software system", except that we are confusing the algorithm-based simulation of real-life storage with the real life, the computer machines with the living cells and organisms, and the self-reproducing automatons with the real-life organisms that can replicate since the origins of life[5,9,14].

...

The genome itself, via natural genome editing[19], generates large amounts of coherent new sequences and inserts these into DNA genomes without damaging essential protein-coding regions. This is not possible for any human-made software.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4160521/
The best designs are simple.
Complexity is a sign of bad design.
Simplicity is hard. Complexity is something that happens if you don't prevent it.

Also, this
Quote
The genome itself, via natural genome editing[19], generates large amounts of coherent new sequences and inserts these into DNA genomes without damaging essential protein-coding regions. This is not possible for any human-made software.
is nonsense. Software used to work like that, it turned out be be a spectacularly bad idea. We stopped doing it that way.
Hahahahahaha

Yeah ... organisms don't operate very well ... if God would just update the software ...

Lolololol

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #19
I missed this one ...

"Complexity is a sign of bad design."

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

So God's unimaginably complex design that allows sunlight to be converted into grass which in turn is converted into meat, milk and eggs is ...

DRUM ROLL

Bad design.

Oh my sides!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #20
"There is a new class of software that is quite a bit more like biological systems."

Wait.

Why?

I thought biological software was "bad design".

Wow.

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #21
Oh my God ... the stupidity ... it burns!!

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #22
Not that Dave will understand what pingu just said. :(

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #23
"There is a new class of software that is quite a bit more like biological systems."

Wait.

Why?

I thought biological software was "bad design".

Wow.

Take the time to understand what people are saying. You'll garner a modicum of respect even if you disagree. As it is, you might as well be farting into the wind for all the sense you're making.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #24
Yeah ... organisms don't operate very well ... if God would just update the software ...
No one said "organisms don't operate very well".
Or anything like that.

Your strawman campaign continues.
It is profoundly dishonest.
Quote

Lolololol
idiot
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins