Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational:  It's good to be vig

Topic: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software (Read 1000 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #100
Pingu: "mutations aren't mistakes."

Ayala:

Quote
Ayala, Francisco J., "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
p. 58
"A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein."

Lol

Important Words: "can be considered"

Subtle distinctions in the definition and interpretation of words: consider: "error" vs "mistake"

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #101
Looks like a duck.

Walks like a duck.

Quacks like a duck.

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #102
Coyotes eat it ...  just like they eat ducks.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #103
It could be a "mistake" or "error", I suppose.
Depending on your definition of "mistake" or "error".
What's yours? 

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

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #104
You frequently quack like a duck, has any one identified you as an actual duck? No, of course not, because 'quack like a duck' is metaphorical.

  • Pingu
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #105
No one ever said "ORGANISMS are like code."

It's DNA that's "like code" ... somewhat ... but it's far more sophisticated. 

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

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].

Exactly.  So why are you banging on about "software"?
:facepalm:

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.  Why don't you read posts instead of hawkinsing them?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #106
You frequently quack like a duck, has any one identified you as an actual duck? No, of course not, because 'quack like a duck' is metaphorical.
I do?

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #107
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.
  • Last Edit: February 24, 2018, 01:08:04 PM by Saunt Taunga

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #108
It could be a "mistake" or "error", I suppose.
Depending on your definition of "mistake" or "error".
What's yours? 

:icare:
Stupid ass question.

Read this ... https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409

  • uncool
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #109
You frequently quack like a duck, has any one identified you as an actual duck? No, of course not, because 'quack like a duck' is metaphorical.
Nah. He speaks like one.

  • Pingu
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #110
Looks like a duck.

Walks like a duck.

Quacks like a duck.

Here is just one way in which DNA is not like "software":

"Software" in a computer context, is code that runs on a computer.  Different code can be run on the same computer.  The same computer can be operated with different operating software. This is why we make a distinction between "software"  (the code) and "hardware" (the circuitry etc of the computer).  There is no analog for "the computer" for a cell or an organism.  DNA does not "run on" anything. It's a physical molecule.  It is hardware.

Another: DNA is an information storage system.  It isn't a command system.  If you want an analog to a computer actually running commands from a piece of software, then you need to include lots of other things as your "software" - not just the DNA.

There are many more.

So if you want to use "software" as a metaphor for DNA you need to say precisely which aspect of DNA you are treating as the analog of "software".  You aren't.  You are merely handwaving.  That article you posted makes that point.


  • Last Edit: February 24, 2018, 02:43:37 PM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #111
It could be a "mistake" or "error", I suppose.
Depending on your definition of "mistake" or "error".
What's yours? 

:icare:
Stupid ass question.
Actually, it was a rhetorical question.
Because we all know you don't have an answer.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #112
It could be a "mistake" or "error", I suppose.
Depending on your definition of "mistake" or "error".
What's yours? 

:icare:
Stupid ass question.

Read this ... https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409

Dave: try expressing what YOU think - your OWN point - instead of just linking to papers you clearly do not understand.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #113
It could be a "mistake" or "error", I suppose.
Depending on your definition of "mistake" or "error".
What's yours? 

:icare:
Stupid ass question.

Read this ... https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409

Dave: try expressing what YOU think - your OWN point - instead of just linking to papers you clearly do not understand.
The linked paper, incidentally, does NOT answer the question.

I use expressions like "error-prone polymerase" all the time.
But, unlike Hawkins, I can tell you exactly what my definition of "error" is in that context.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #114
It could be a "mistake" or "error", I suppose.
Depending on your definition of "mistake" or "error".
What's yours? 

:icare:
Stupid ass question.

Read this ... https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409

Dave: try expressing what YOU think - your OWN point - instead of just linking to papers you clearly do not understand.
The linked paper, incidentally, does NOT answer the question.

I use expressions like "error-prone polymerase" all the time.
But, unlike Hawkins, I can tell you exactly what my definition of "error" is in that context.

Of course it doesn't answer "the question" as to what DAVE means by "error". 

Dave himself doesn't even know what he means, any more than he knows what he means by "random".
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #115
Of course it doesn't answer "the question" as to what DAVE means by "error". 

Dave himself doesn't even know what he means, any more than he knows what he means by "random".
I'm pretty sure it boils down to:
The sequence ordained by God is the "correct" sequence.
Copies of the sequence that differ from that are "incorrect", "mistakes", "errors"...
But, having just cited Shapiro, and written:
This is a science forum.
... he has to avoid honestly answering the question at all costs.

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

  • Pingu
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #116
Of course it doesn't answer "the question" as to what DAVE means by "error". 

Dave himself doesn't even know what he means, any more than he knows what he means by "random".
I'm pretty sure it boils down to:
The sequence ordained by God is the "correct" sequence.
Copies of the sequence that differ from that are "incorrect", "mistakes", "errors"...
But, having just cited Shapiro, and written:
This is a science forum.
... he has to avoid honestly answering the question at all costs.

His whole thing is completely self-contradictory anyway. Apparently all this "non-random" variation pre-existed from "the beginning" and natural selection only selects what is useful at the time, yet there was a bottleneck allegedly down to a max of four alleles in multicellular organisms on the ark.

So he needs to find some way of getting some of that "pre existing" variation back into the population again.  But it can't be "random".

Which is where he usually handwaves about Shapiro.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #117
Pingu: "mutations aren't mistakes."

Ayala:

Quote
Ayala, Francisco J., "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
p. 58
"A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein."

Lol

Unlike you, I don't regard any written text as infallible.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #118
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.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #119
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.
:badger:
"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 #120
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?

  • Faid
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #121
Looks like a duck.

Walks like a duck.

Quacks like a duck.
Therefore, it's a fish.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #122
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.
Which is one reason nobody around here gives anything you post any credibility whatsoever.
Just like they don't give much credibility to the opinions of the clowns at the circus on evolution or quantum physics.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #123
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.

Well, you are certainly wasting everyone else's.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Faid
Re: Manmade Software is Clumsy Compared to Godmade Software
Reply #124
Pingu: "mutations aren't mistakes."

Ayala:

Quote
Ayala, Francisco J., "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
p. 58
"A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein."

Lol

Important Words: "can be considered"

Subtle distinctions in the definition and interpretation of words: consider: "error" vs "mistake"
Don't be silly. It's not like:
In the real world (as opposed to your fantasy world) there are many shades of meaning that people attach to various words.  We only get the detailed view of what they mean when we hear them describe what they mean.
...That would be preposterous! Walks like a duck, it's a fucking duck I tells ya!
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.