(December 9, 2019 at 5:15 pm)Rahn127 Wrote:(December 9, 2019 at 4:50 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Simon Moon, how boring.
The only requirement to converse in any subject is a brain not a PhD. If you're not interested in these conversations, at the very least let those that are continue to participate.
If you'd like, I'll forward you the PDFs for my university's biology and genetics textbooks. I look forward to hearing from you when you feel more qualified.
A brain with a PhD in the subject matter is indeed more useful and likely contains more truth about the topic.
I am a lay person when it comes to biology. I've had a single basic University course on the topic and not much more.
Those with more knowledge try to explain to lay people that DNA is like a blueprint or it's like a program code of instructions. People understand blueprints and program codes.
The problem lies with some lay people thinking that this simple explanation is ALL there is to it. They want to take this over simplified explanation and treat it like unmovable knowledge.
An automobile is not simply a much larger toy car.
There's more to it than that, but if try to explain all the complexity to a child, the concepts will be lost. That child will need a couple decades of education before he or she will be able to understand everything that makes up a car, it's engine, transmission, body structure, engineering concepts, etc.
DNA is not a code. It's not a blueprint in it's truest sense.
These are terms used to help a lay person to understand some of the basic ideas. It's not completely accurate, in much the same way that an automobile is not just a much larger toy car.
It is the principle of "lies-to-children" in action. Now, that sounds rather patronising, but it isn't. Anyone who has had children naturally understands it.
In short, when one's child asks about any topic, one provides a simplified answer using metaphors and analogies that are sufficient to the child's level of understanding. Every parent has done this. Every one of them understands that they are not presenting a full picture. Every teacher has done this.
And example would be the Bohr model of the atom, which would have ballistic electrons orbiting a nucleus at particular radii. We know that is not actually the case, yet still we teach it, because one must approach the topic stepwise, developing understanding in increments or small enough bites that a student can digest them before moving on to more advanced understanding.
The problem arises when a theist gloms on to one of the intermediate analogies as a matter of fact and not at all an analogy.