Does DNA contain digital information?

[Tiberius]

Firstly, always be wary with animations, especially those used in biology. They are never as accurate as they seem to be; they are often presented in ways which the animators think the viewer will understand best. What might looks like very clever "machines" are often simple processes within the cell that don't really do anything as amazing as the animations seem to show.

Secondly, in regards to the "design patterns", it doesn't seem very surprising that nature beat us to this either. Cells have been evolving for billions of years; it makes sense that they would have very efficient ways of doing things by now. Design patterns are certain ways of coding things to make the overall program more efficient, but they are all tied into specific tasks. In other words, a programming task was stated, and programmers have come up with the best practice way ("design pattern") to execute the task. The whole concept of the growth of a design pattern (or the growth of a computer program for that matter) can be linked to evolution, in that a program always starts off very simple, often with hastily programmed methods, but it improves over time as the programmer looks over the code, eradicates bugs, and makes methods more efficient.

So no, I don't think it is surprising at all that over 4 billion years, cells have been able to take a task, and come up with efficient "machines" to execute it. Humans have done the same in a matter of years, but then we have the benefit of a working mind and can think ahead; the cells cannot.

[The Grand Nudger]

A hole in the ground is a template for a puddle that needed no designer. We could pour plastic into this hole, call the hole a mold, and still there need be no designer.

[CoxRox]

A hole in the ground is a template for a puddle that needed no designer. We could pour plastic into this hole, call the hole a mold, and still there need be no designer.

'Molds' that produce things like fossils, puddles, are not templates in the way plastic molds are and indeed the templates produced via dna and rna. Your 'mold' consists of a 'space' ie 'nothing'. The dna 'moulds' or rather templates, consist of millions of bits of information that are dependant on other organised processes in the cell via other molecular machines.

[The Grand Nudger]

Cox, it's a mold. Just not the kind of mold you need it to be to make your point. You're assuming intent and then pointing to a "mold" as though it is proof of intent. I'm merely trying to explain to you that there need be no such intent. Molds that are used for plastic injection are obviously products of intent, human intent.

---

DNA, as a template, is also not "dependant" in the sense that you wish it to be. A living structure can in fact be formed without the ancillary structures to support it. This ends in death (but, surprise, not always). In a top down model (your model), why would organisms be born without all of the components required for life? (IE why would some organisms be born without functioning organs?) Did the creator fuck the pooch on this one? Or maybe, the creators plan has been subverted by natural process (how exactly would that happen?)?

[CoxRox]

Firstly, always be wary with animations, especially those used in biology. They are never as accurate as they seem to be; they are often presented in ways which the animators think the viewer will understand best. What might looks like very clever "machines" are often simple processes within the cell that don't really do anything as amazing as the animations seem to show.

I thought that must be the case regarding the 'diagram' of the bacterial flagellum. I remember showing it to my husband and he thought it was a motor of some kind. He looked rather bemused when I told him what it was..... I remember seeing an actual magnified image of the flagellum and it does look like the diagrams.

So no, I don't think it is surprising at all that over 4 billion years, cells have been able to take a task, and come up with efficient "machines" to execute it. Humans have done the same in a matter of years, but then we have the benefit of a working mind and can think ahead; the cells cannot.

Is it possible that a 'working mind' is needed to 'come up with efficient machines' like the cell?

I've come across a similar discussion on another atheist forum which I'm sure will cover all the things I've been wondering about.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=135497

[The Grand Nudger]

For a little background, if you want to use manufacturing analogies and apply them to biology, I;m a former DOD electronics MFG contractor, who now works as an Ag Research consultant. So, by all means, continue.

[CoxRox]

Cox, it's a mold. Just not the kind of mold you need it to be to make your point. You're assuming intent and then pointing to a "mold" as though it is proof of intent. I'm merely trying to explain to you that there need be no such intent. Molds that are used for plastic injection are obviously products of intent, human intent.

---

DNA, as a template, is also not "dependant" in the sense that you wish it to be. A living structure can in fact be formed without the ancillary structures to support it. This ends in death (but, surprise, not always). In a top down model (your model), why would organisms be born without all of the components required for life? (IE why would some organisms be born without functioning organs?)

Well, I'm trying to establish if DNA is part of a designed system. This is the big question. You say it isn't and I say that so far, from what I've read and studied about it, it sure seems to my mind that 'design' is a vital part of its existence.

---

For a little background, if you want to use manufacturing analogies and apply them to biology, I;m a former DOD electronics MFG contractor, who now works as an Ag Research consultant. So, by all means, continue.

It's not that 'I' want to use 'manufacturing' terminology etc. But when I find guys like yourself from electronics/computer/manufacturing backgrounds using this terminololgy, then that's what promps me to ask these questions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here, download the java app and have fun with this. In trying to describe the functions of life I will use terminology or language from MFG, it's poetic, artistic, I assume that the people listening know that I'm using it to describe the function. It is not directly analogous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life

---

Well, I'm trying to establish if DNA is part of a designed system. This is the big question. You say it isn't and I say that so far, from what I've read and studied about it, it sure seems to my mind that 'design' is a vital part of its existence.

You've either read wrong, or read what you wanted to believe into what is actually there.

---

Here's an ID exercise, explain cancer by appealing to the notion of top down design.

[CoxRox]

For a little background, if you want to use manufacturing analogies and apply them to biology, I;m a former DOD electronics MFG contractor, who now works as an Ag Research consultant. So, by all means, continue.

I know this video well. Darwinian posted it on my Irreducible Complexity thread a couple of years ago. Having re-watched this same video recently, I noticed Miller misrepresent Behe, or rather IC: if you notice at about 2.45 Miller claims that 'the individual parts have no function of their own. That's what irreducible complexity means'.

NO NO NO. That is NOT what irreducible complexity means or is saying. He misquotes Behe it would appear to me. Of the 40 or so 'parts' that make up the flagellum, 10 of those 'parts' are 'mini molecular machines' that are used in other organisms. I believe this is called co-option. I don't think Behe any where says that individual parts that make up an irreducibly complex system don't have 'individual functions' or rather 'can' have. I believe that of the 40 or so parts of the flageullum the 30 other parts DONT occur in other organisms. Quite where they're 'borrowed' from, I don't know.

As for Miller 'deducting' his '40' parts (he's working on the basis of 50 or so parts- different people use different numberings), he is left with a workable machine ie the typer 111 secretory system. Now he may have a point that this is a 'precursor' system, but this has not been proven yet, as far as I know. So what he is 'left with' is yes, a working 'machine'.

I emailed some web sites for further clarification regarding the type 111 ss a couple of weeks ago and I'm awaiting their replies.

[The Grand Nudger]

A rock falls from the sky crushing a walnut below. Voila, a "working machine". Does your model have any predictive power? Does it explain anything (say, again, cancer) or is it entirely comprised of begging for favorable definitions, and appeals to ignorance?