New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Aug 2006 20:55 John Larkin wrote: > And a single cell of a plant must not be alive (it's a fraction of a > plant) even though you can remove it and coax it to grow into a full > plant. > > Is a fertilized egg alive? A seed? Mysterious isn't it ? What is life ? Why do we die ? Graham
From: David Brown on 27 Aug 2006 08:38 John Larkin wrote: > On 24 Aug 2006 17:03:30 +0200, David Brown > <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > >> John Larkin wrote: >>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:33:30 +0100, John Woodgate >>> <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> In message <h8dpe2lejviejg95mg6e09n9pvu588f04r(a)4ax.com>, dated Wed, 23 >>>> Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> writes >>>>> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:15:39 +0100, John Woodgate >>>>> <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> My general position is that DNA is algorithmically complex enough to >>>>>>> employ virtually any mechanisms that aren't in violation of first >>>>>>> principles. >>>>>> DNA is a code; it doesn't 'employ mechanisms'. >>>>> DNA and its allied enzymes, RNA, proteins, and other gadgets is a >>>>> dynamic system, not a static code. Its operational complexity is but >>>>> dimly understood, barely hinted at. >>>> Yes, it's system, not a conscious entity. >>> You can't know that, either. >>> >>> >>>>> DNA employs extensive repair, replication, synthesis, and probably >>>>> other unknown mechanisms. It's a machine, or possibly more. >>>> It doesn't 'employ' anything. You are implying that it has powers of >>>> thought and reasoning. >>> It certainly has incredibly sophisticated algorithms. How can you know >>> so much about what DNA isn't? >>> >>>>> I wonder why so many people insist that DNA is a static blueprint >>>>> that's only modified by random mutation. I suspect it's because, if one >>>>> conjectures anything else, one is acused of being a closet Believer or >>>>> something heinous like that. >>>> DNA is a code. >>> >>> DNA is clearly alive. >>> >>> John >>> >> DNA is simply a long polymer molecule made up of molecules adenine, >> thymine, cytosine and guanine. It is no more "alive" or "intelligent" >> than a list of the letters A, T, C and G written on a piece of paper. > > The same argument suggests that you aren't alive or intelligent. > You're just made of elements. > Life and intelligence are both emergent properties - they are macroscopic properties that result from the combination of huge numbers of microscopic effects. DNA as a molecule structure that can hold a coding scheme. It is not alive in itself, nor are the codes held in the DNA. DNA is an essential part of life as we know it, but it is not in itself alive. When blue sky researchers play with DNA "computers", they are playing with chemistry sets and statistics - they are not creating life. >> It has no "algorithms", > > You must be joking. DNA is the most complex state machine on the > planet. > DNA can *encode* an algorithm (or more precisely, it mostly encodes protein recipes). You would do better to think of DNA as RAM in a computer - in itself, it is a simple, regular structure which does very little. However, it can reliably hold codes that can have great power and flexibility, assuming the rest of the computer (cpu, etc.) is there to interpret and execute these codes. >> it does not "reason" or "plan" anything. > > And you have no basis for that statement but prejudice. > My prejudices (in this matter) are for science and common sense. > >> It >> does not in itself evolve, any more than other biologically important >> molecules like amino acids evolve. > > Was every chrosome created in its exact present form? Were the copy, > control, and replication enzymes always there? Are you a Creationist? > The chromosome structure, along with molecules for copying, verifying and using DNA are not part of the DNA. These biological structures are *encoded* in the DNA - they are not part of it. You can happily make a DNA molecule without any of these features. A program for copying other programs is not part of a RAM chip, even if it is stored in a RAM chip and is an essential part of computing. As to where the first DNA molecules came from - that's a question for abiogenesis, which is related to but separate from evolution. I'm sure there were changes in the structures used for coding biological information (certainly RNA came first, and there are a few variations in the structures of DNA used by different organisms), but very early on in the story of life, DNA became the standard, and it has not changed since. This is similar to the basic respiration of sugar plus oxygen making carbon dioxide, water and energy that is common to all animals - certain arrangements are so successful and stable that there is little chance of alternatives evolving. Mechanisms for manipulating DNA, such as for copying and for error correction, have changed and evolved through time and across different species. But these are, as I said above, not part of the DNA itself. As an extreme example, viruses have a totally different way of replicating their DNA from bacteria. > > >> It is simply a way to store codes. >> The biological mechanisms in a cell can do marvellous things with these >> codes, including building proteins described by the codes, and >> reproducing the entire cell, and making new copies of the DNA (including >> a chance of mutation that is neither too high nor too low - a result of >> evolved DNA reproduction mechanisms). >> > > Those mechanisms are themselves defined and created by DNA. Certainly > the entire dynamic system of a cell involves more than the DNA strands > in the chromosomes, but DNA defines them itself. > >> DNA is nothing more nor less than the medium upon which biological >> software (genes) is encoded. > > The software is the system. > Indeed it is - but we are discussing DNA, not the system. Perhaps when you refer to "DNA", you don't mean the molecular structure or DNA itself, but the entire system around it? That would explain some of your comments (the "algorithms" are part of the system, not the molecule), although not all (the system is not intelligent or reasoning). > John >
From: John Woodgate on 27 Aug 2006 12:51 In message <ulh3f29fcfjgmo8gf76gfvo26hjipgvc8d(a)4ax.com>, dated Sun, 27 Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes >insist that DNA is simple because it's just made out of proteins. It isn't. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: John Larkin on 27 Aug 2006 13:45 On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:51:17 +0100, John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <ulh3f29fcfjgmo8gf76gfvo26hjipgvc8d(a)4ax.com>, dated Sun, 27 >Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> >writes >>insist that DNA is simple because it's just made out of proteins. > >It isn't. Three! John
From: Eeyore on 27 Aug 2006 19:10
John Woodgate wrote: > In message <ulh3f29fcfjgmo8gf76gfvo26hjipgvc8d(a)4ax.com>, dated Sun, 27 > Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> > writes > >insist that DNA is simple because it's just made out of proteins. > > It isn't. Yes it is. :~p Graham |