New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 23 Aug 2006 16:12 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. DNA employs extensive repair, replication, synthesis, and probably other unknown mechanisms. It's a machine, or possibly more. 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. John
From: John Woodgate on 23 Aug 2006 16:33 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. > >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. > >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. -- 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 24 Aug 2006 08:50 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
From: David Brown on 24 Aug 2006 11:03 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. It has no "algorithms", it does not "reason" or "plan" anything. It does not in itself evolve, any more than other biologically important molecules like amino acids evolve. 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). DNA is nothing more nor less than the medium upon which biological software (genes) is encoded.
From: John Woodgate on 24 Aug 2006 11:39
In message <c08re2t573bss4en3h0d07hb1o599ert3p(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 24 Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> writes >You can't know that, either. This is futile. It's not possible to have a rational debate in the face of unreasoning denials. > [snip] > > >DNA is clearly alive. For sufficiently non-living values of 'alive'. -- 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 |