Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TR: ima be more drunk in a few bitches!!!

Topic: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software (Read 909 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • RickB
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #150
The pdf of the article is here: https://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v239/n3/pdf/scientificamerican0978-56.pdf

It does contain that quote. With some context:
Quote
In  protein  synthesis  the  amino  acids specified  by  the  sequence  of  codons along  the  gene  are  added  one  by  one to  the  growing  chain.  Once  the  protein has been assembled it spontaneously as­sumes a specific three-dimensional form and begins to function as an enzyme,  as a structural  component or in some other biological  role.  The  characteristics  and behavior of organisms depend ultimate­ly on  the  sequences  of  amino  acids  in their  proteins.  and  evolution  consists largely in the progressive substitution of one  amino  acid  for  another. The new understanding of  the chemi­cal  nature  of  the  gene  has  provided  a view of mutation at the molecular level.

A  mutation  can  be considered  an error in  the  replication  of  DNA  prior  to  its translation into protein. Such an error is often confined to the replacement of one nucleotide-base pair by another (a point mutation).  and  it  may  lead  to  the  re­placement of one amino acid by another in the protein specified for by that gene. Point mutations that result in the substi­tution  of  an  amino  acid  are  called  mis­sense  mutations;  those  that  convert  the codon  for  an  amino  acid  into  a  "stop" codon  are  called  nonsense  mutations. Other  mutations  may involve the inser­tion of a nucleotide into the DNA molecule or the deletion of a nucleotide from it;  such  mutations  may  have  more  per­vasive  effects  by  shifting  the  "frame"  in which  the  nucleotide  sequence  is  read. and they may lead to several missense or nonsense  substitutions.  If  these  DNA mutations  occur in the germ cells of  the organism.  they  will  be  passed  on  to  the next  generation.

Thanks for the context uncool.  I had found that link in my quest, but don't have access to SciAm so couldn't 'see' past the pay wall disclaimer.  Interesting about the frame shift (if I am reading correctly) causing a 'stop codon' (as I understand it, a specific triple nucleotide sequence) to be interpreted early or late.  Thus leading to a different amino acid being coded or no amino acid at all.

As a side question, what happens if no 'stop codon' is encountered (probably not likely, but just asking)?


Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #151
I refuse to entertain this perennial bullshit nonsense about copying errors in DNA not being mistakes. Utterly ridiculous and I refuse to waste my time.
How does a chemical reaction make a mistake?
By not copying the correct thing from the template. I don't know ... go ask a biochemist. It's them saying it, not me.
Maybe phrasing things to not confuse YECies is not a priority for biochemist.

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #152
Have to admit, "what about the YECs?" isn't something that goes through my head when writing.

Is it even possible to write so as to not confuse YECs? I mean, we've seen Dave misconstrue some ridiculously obvious concepts, written up in language that cannot be more simple and precise.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #153
Hey Dave. Did you forget this post? Or are you badgering again?

I can safely say as the father of two expert bowhunting sons... That this is a poorly designed bow and arrow ... they would not be kill anything with this. WTF was the designer thinking!?



I cannot get this dang image to show
There we go ... it was an issue with my phone.

Anyway, do you see my point?
Yes, Dave. Your point is that you think we're idiots that can't think through the fact that there are differences.

We talked about one principle of programming before: a programmer documentary his code on all levels he thinks someone else will use. A programmer that doesn't is either an inconsiderate programmer, an incompetent programmer, or a hostile programmer.

God didn't document his work on most levels. So which one is he? Inconsiderate, incompetent, or hostile?
Though this is a bit late, I believe the designer of that nerf bow and arrow was not trying to make a lethal weapon for actual hunting and/or warfare but rather to make a play toy bow and arrow that was safe for kids to play like they were hunting or at war. Sort of like kid's cap guns don't really shoot bullets and play swords are made of foam so they don't actually cut things.

Bluffy really is a bluffoon.
That's...kind of his point.
Yes exactly ... An African bushman might see this bow and arrow and think "poor design" (by African bushman bow and arrow standards) because he can tell by looking that he could not kill an animal with it ... Just as Saunt Tonga can tell by looking that "biological software" exhibits "poor design" as well assuming human software writing standards.
You are confusing function and design again. Design is about how the function is achieved. Your bushman is thinking poor function, it will not kill, not poor design.
If a fully functional bushman's bow was made with three times as much material in three times a much time. And being a bow maker, the bushman sees all this, the bushman might well think, OK, it works, but the guy that made it is incompetent.

That's what I mean by bad design.
I'm not confusing anything. If you prefer, consider the bush man seeing a compound bow for the first time. He might think that it's bad design because of all those pulleys and extra lengths of string.

The point is that if he tries to authoritatively assert that it's bad design, he's making a mistake because the truth is he simply doesn't have knowledge about compound bows.

Just like you don't have knowledge about biological software. Or certainly not very much knowledge. None of us do.
If he tries the compound bow and it works exactly the same as one he could make himself he should call it a bad design.
But compound bows are not designed to work the same as simple ones are they?

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #154
Example, Kidneys:

Quote
As we develop in the womb, we form three sets of kidneys. The pronephroi ('forekidneys') are non-functional and appear in the fourth week; they soon degenerate, but the ducts are recycled in the... mesonephroi ('midkidneys'). These contain glomeruli and tubules; they degenerate during the first trimester, but the tubules are recycled in the... metanephroi ('hindkidneys'), which are our permanent kidneys.

When I see something similar in code, some function is performed in steps A, B and C. But, most of the results of A and B are never used, while I can see that these results used to be useful in earlier versions but no longer are. And I see that step B was added after A, and C after B. I will conclude that the programmers that added B and C didn't have the intelligence or time to do it right. It is a suboptimal design.

Being in awe of the wicked smart complexity of steps A and B and thinking it would be arrogant to fix them is not a valid excuse for shoddynes.
  • Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 12:13:05 AM by Saunt Taunga

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #155
When you say that comparing God's "software" to human software God's is so super awesome good, it's humbling.

And then, when someone points out that comparing it to human software some bits look dumb, also say that humans are to dumb to compare them, and to try would be arrogant.

Then you need the same Christian thought technology that enables mustering the arrogance of believing you have personal relationship with the all-powerful creator of the universe while calling that humility to make that work.

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #156
Hey Dave. Did you forget this post? Or are you badgering again?

I can safely say as the father of two expert bowhunting sons... That this is a poorly designed bow and arrow ... they would not be kill anything with this. WTF was the designer thinking!?



I cannot get this dang image to show
There we go ... it was an issue with my phone.

Anyway, do you see my point?
Yes, Dave. Your point is that you think we're idiots that can't think through the fact that there are differences.

We talked about one principle of programming before: a programmer documentary his code on all levels he thinks someone else will use. A programmer that doesn't is either an inconsiderate programmer, an incompetent programmer, or a hostile programmer.

God didn't document his work on most levels. So which one is he? Inconsiderate, incompetent, or hostile?
Though this is a bit late, I believe the designer of that nerf bow and arrow was not trying to make a lethal weapon for actual hunting and/or warfare but rather to make a play toy bow and arrow that was safe for kids to play like they were hunting or at war. Sort of like kid's cap guns don't really shoot bullets and play swords are made of foam so they don't actually cut things.

Bluffy really is a bluffoon.
That's...kind of his point.
Yes exactly ... An African bushman might see this bow and arrow and think "poor design" (by African bushman bow and arrow standards) because he can tell by looking that he could not kill an animal with it ... Just as Saunt Tonga can tell by looking that "biological software" exhibits "poor design" as well assuming human software writing standards.
You are confusing function and design again. Design is about how the function is achieved. Your bushman is thinking poor function, it will not kill, not poor design.
If a fully functional bushman's bow was made with three times as much material in three times a much time. And being a bow maker, the bushman sees all this, the bushman might well think, OK, it works, but the guy that made it is incompetent.

That's what I mean by bad design.
I'm not confusing anything. If you prefer, consider the bush man seeing a compound bow for the first time. He might think that it's bad design because of all those pulleys and extra lengths of string.

The point is that if he tries to authoritatively assert that it's bad design, he's making a mistake because the truth is he simply doesn't have knowledge about compound bows.

Just like you don't have knowledge about biological software. Or certainly not very much knowledge. None of us do.
If he tries the compound bow and it works exactly the same as one he could make himself he should call it a bad design.
But compound bows are not designed to work the same as simple ones are they?

Remember your original assertion about "bad design" in "biological software" did not involve "trying it."  How would you even do that?  Your assertion only concerned "how it looks" ... so I think my analogy is spot on.

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #157
Hey Dave. Did you forget this post? Or are you badgering again?

I can safely say as the father of two expert bowhunting sons... That this is a poorly designed bow and arrow ... they would not be kill anything with this. WTF was the designer thinking!?



I cannot get this dang image to show
There we go ... it was an issue with my phone.

Anyway, do you see my point?
Yes, Dave. Your point is that you think we're idiots that can't think through the fact that there are differences.

We talked about one principle of programming before: a programmer documentary his code on all levels he thinks someone else will use. A programmer that doesn't is either an inconsiderate programmer, an incompetent programmer, or a hostile programmer.

God didn't document his work on most levels. So which one is he? Inconsiderate, incompetent, or hostile?
Though this is a bit late, I believe the designer of that nerf bow and arrow was not trying to make a lethal weapon for actual hunting and/or warfare but rather to make a play toy bow and arrow that was safe for kids to play like they were hunting or at war. Sort of like kid's cap guns don't really shoot bullets and play swords are made of foam so they don't actually cut things.

Bluffy really is a bluffoon.
That's...kind of his point.
Yes exactly ... An African bushman might see this bow and arrow and think "poor design" (by African bushman bow and arrow standards) because he can tell by looking that he could not kill an animal with it ... Just as Saunt Tonga can tell by looking that "biological software" exhibits "poor design" as well assuming human software writing standards.
You are confusing function and design again. Design is about how the function is achieved. Your bushman is thinking poor function, it will not kill, not poor design.
If a fully functional bushman's bow was made with three times as much material in three times a much time. And being a bow maker, the bushman sees all this, the bushman might well think, OK, it works, but the guy that made it is incompetent.

That's what I mean by bad design.
I'm not confusing anything. If you prefer, consider the bush man seeing a compound bow for the first time. He might think that it's bad design because of all those pulleys and extra lengths of string.

The point is that if he tries to authoritatively assert that it's bad design, he's making a mistake because the truth is he simply doesn't have knowledge about compound bows.

Just like you don't have knowledge about biological software. Or certainly not very much knowledge. None of us do.
If he tries the compound bow and it works exactly the same as one he could make himself he should call it a bad design.
But compound bows are not designed to work the same as simple ones are they?

Remember your original assertion about "bad design" in "biological software" did not involve "trying it."  How would you even do that?  Your assertion only concerned "how it looks" ... so I think my analogy is spot on.
Trying it is a way to determine function: does it work. For biological systems, organisms, this would be: is it alive, is it in danger of extinction. My assertion is not concerned with "how it looks", but with "how it works" and "how it's made". Perhaps that is the same as"how it looks" to a maker/designer and "how it looks" to a user. A competent user could determine "how it works" from "how it looks". A competent maker could also see "how it's made".
Functional things can be made by incompetent makers. So functional organisms are not proof of God's competence.
  • Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 04:27:03 AM by Saunt Taunga

  • nesb
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #158
What might God know about e.g. folks propensity to get cancer, that we don't, that would fundamentally change how we view it?