Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He argues that DNA is a highly advanced computer of sorts that can emulate all it's functions much more efficiently than any computer man has come up with so far. DNA has an encoder, decoder, redundancy, data storage (100x more dense than modern storage), layering, and he goes through all the ways that cells can evolve, that the random mutation theory that most people believe is only a small piece of the puzzle, and that cells don't evolve from random mistakes... that would be like saying you can corrupt a computer file and have it work.. even one bit is off and the file might not even open... DNA doesn't evolve from radiation for example.. all radiation experiments trying to get DNA to mutate only result in radiation resistant DNA... you subject a creature to radiation, it's like corrupting a computer file.. it gets destroyed, or the DNA tries to fill in the errors by guessing and bad things happen. It's all quite fascinating. We have 20 amino acids but 64 codons because of the redundancy principle. We have lots of "junk DNA" that might not be the junk people think.. it's there so that if there is an error somewhere there are levels of redundancy that can repair the damage... it's all quite fascinating to ponder. Also, the larger the DNA the more data it can store.
The whole premise of the book is to basically state you can't have DNA form spontaneously from nowhere, so maybe there's an intelligence at work.. a programmer that made the code. I was more interested in the various ways DNA can evolve and what it's capable of doing.. whether or not there is a higher power involved doesn't matter that much to me. The first 1/2 of the book was more useful in that regard. Once I got to the Chapter where he started bashing Dawkins, the material became less useful to me personally. He says that DNA is not "like" code, but it "is" code.
Without reading the book, it is difficult to say if he is correct or not, but it sounds as if his knowledge of DNA and biology is not good.
The analogy between program code and DNA has a few flaws. From a post I made yesterday comparing DNA code with computer code.
Computer code is precise and easy to understand. I can look at another persons code and see what they are doing. It should have checks built in (z.b., zero by division), and is easily patched.
But we can also use genetic programming to optimize human code. However, the resulting code is often hard or impossible to understand, is difficult or impossible to patch, and only works better because of chance, not design.
And that is the same with DNA code, with either redundant or very convoluted instructions. Often one of piece of code does two or more things, or a minor change alters the function completely. DNA code is more fragile. That is one of the differences.
Computer code is based on simplistic binary language, i.e. 1s and 0s. You can do a lot with that, but nothing even remotely near the workings of DNA.
DNA and DNA encoding and communication are trillions of miles more advanced. So a big fat NO. But people are desperate and foolish and need attention. So we'll always see this kind of thing.
This would probably work with quantum computers, where its not just '0s' and '1s', and where things can be more than 1 thing at a time and be in a different location at the same time, its almost too complex to wrap your mind around the possibilities!
Computer code is based on simplistic binary language, i.e. 1s and 0s. You can do a lot with that, but nothing even remotely near the workings of DNA.
DNA and DNA encoding and communication are trillions of miles more advanced. So a big fat NO. But people are desperate and foolish and need attention. So we'll always see this kind of thing.
Exactly.
The human genome codes for roughly 2 x 10^4 enzymes, each of which is an average of ~ 3 x 10^2 AAs long, each AA of which is coded for by a 3 unit codon, ie- ~ 20 billion bits of info...I don't know anything about computer code. ...Is that doable?
The products of the genome are often modified further by post-translational modifications (PTMs). DNA and the genetic code are sort of like old school understandings of physics that relied on kinematics and other classic physics concepts. PTMs are like quantum mechanics.
When DNA encodes a protein it can be modified further by PTMs to dramatically increase the repertoire of available molecules that regulate life. Human DNA actually has less protein coding sequences than some rice and a certain species of a tree, but who'd ever argue that a human is less complex than a tree because a tree has more proteins in its DNA than humans?
In steps PTMs to save the day. Take for example the glycome, which is the entire set of all sugar molecules that can be added to proteins or that surround the extracellular matrix of cells. The glycome is in fact potentially orders and order and orders of magnitude more complex than the genetic code. In fact, it is one of the most biologically complex biochemical sets of molecules that exist in all of nature. Your DNA encodes for protein. OK. But nature and life doesn't work in such a blunt manner. The activities, half-lives, populations, and folding states of proteins must all be highly controlled to synchronize life, so that chaos becomes ordered. That's what PTMs help to do. Sugar modifications alone are absolutely critical for regulating protein folding, signaling cascades, half-lives of proteins, and virtually ever aspect of life you can think of. For example, nearly 40% of the entire molecular weight of an ion channel found in a neuron comes from sugar PTMs alone. Are we so ignorant to believe that that entire gigantic set of sugars modifying ion channels don't affect ion channel physiology? Well, in fact they do. Lots of research over the years has shown that by modifying one sugar on an ion channel, you can dramatically alter its gating properties that affect neuronal signal transduction. Sugars modifying virtually all of the proteins involved in transcription and translation of your DNA. You can't even transcribe your DNA to synthesize proteins without the involvement of sugars and PTMs. In fact, sugars (not ribose based) directly modify your chromosomes and are very abundant all over it. A gigantic portion of epigenetic regulation of DNA expression comes from PTMs like sugars.
The point here is that PTMs have no code. There is no template that can be used to predict how, when, and where PTMs will occur and what patterns will happen. That's why the PTMs like the glycome have been called the quantum mechanics of biology. There's simply a gigantic level of complexity on top of the genetic code that's regulating life with no discernible code. The processes aren't random of course, but somehow, someway they're able to adaptively respond to the environment, stress, and nutrition to regulate the output of the genetic code so that the protein products encoded in DNA actually do things that will help keep life sustained. Sure, DNA is sorta like a computer code, but all you had were a code like DNA, you'd still be left with a computer that doesn't work very well.
Good post, but glycoproteins/lipoproteins etc still have sub-units coded by the standard genome. Folding & assembly are dictated by the self organizing properties of the individual components-- essentially just a more complex example of the simple process of a drop of oil automatically forming into a sphere in water or a rubber band returning to its resting state after a good stretch...They can't help themselves.
Epigenetics-- the additional modification of NAs after replication or transcription-- is another level of complexity that a programmer would have trouble accounting for.
Computer code is based on simplistic binary language, i.e. 1s and 0s. You can do a lot with that, but nothing even remotely near the workings of DNA.
DNA and DNA encoding and communication are trillions of miles more advanced. So a big fat NO. But people are desperate and foolish and need attention. So we'll always see this kind of thing.
To be fair, DNA is base four while computers are base two. They are comparable.
The problem with DNA is that it's damn hard to figure out how it works.
DNA is not like computer code, it's worse. Computer code, even bad computer code, usually has a logical organization. DNA is the result of millions of years of random mutations and it's complete spaghetti code.
DNA can take at least three forms, non-functional, functional, and control. Most DNA is non functional and never gets expressed. So first you have to eliminate that.
Functional DNA is expressed and used to create proteins. Functional DNA is reused a lot. There isn't a locus on the genome that controls how your radius and ulna grow. There are many that control multiple things. There are genes controlling bone marrow that are used in the arm and leg and everywhere else. If you want to design adamantium claws that are fused with your radius and ulna you have to be careful to not mess something up in your spine.
Control DNA is expressed and creates proteins that control whether other parts of DNA are expressed. You can imagine how all hell can break loose when a mutation occurs in a section of DNA, that controls whether and how other parts of DNA are expressed.
Now that you understand DNA, you have to understand RNA.
After RNA, you also need to have a very good understanding of proteomics, how proteins fold based on the genetic code, the presence of cofactors, temperature, pH, etc. It's mind-bogglingly complex.
I agree, a computer program that lets you design an organism AutoCAD style, and then compiles this high level design into a genome, would be pretty boss. It will happen, but it's decades away at best.
The human genome codes for roughly 2 x 10^4 enzymes, each of which is an average of ~ 3 x 10^2 AAs long, each AA of which is coded for by a 3 unit codon, ie- ~ 20 billion bits of info...I don't know anything about computer code. ...Is that doable?
The Windows 10 32 bit binary is about 3.3 GB in size, which is about 26 billion bits.
The difference with DNA is that you need a solid understanding of the entire toolchain, rather than just a program. The code is also not logically organized and there are a lot of "side effects" (interactions) between seemingly unrelated parts.
Human DNA is not especially unique, even dogs share about 84% of the SAME DNA, certain primates share 96% or more which shows that once evolution and nature found something that worked, it stuck around. Bad or defective genes/DNA dies off, especially if the trait in the animal or person is bad enough to kill them before they can reproduce. A SLOW deer who can't run very well gets killed pretty fast, an animal or person who has a defective gene that causes something bad like immune system failure, heart/liver/kidney failure or mal-development is quickly fatal and tends to weed itself out of the species.
I'm always amazed at how many very young children have to wear glasses just to see NORMALLY! it's a huge genetic defect that in animals would cause early death and be weeded out of the gene pool.
Here I am 61 and I never wore glasses or contacts, I easily passed the DMV eye test a year ago for renewal, the clerk kept looking at me and looking and asking "are you SURE you dont wear contacts or glasses?"
Animals That Share Human DNA Sequences
Rhesus monkeys and humans share 93 % of their DNA.
Written by Lori Garrett-Hatfield
With the discovery of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, and the technology to sequence the genomes of both humans and animals, it is no surprise to find that we have a lot in common with our animal friends. How much humans have in common with animals may come as a bit of a shock. While it is understandable that we share DNA with our cousins the apes, we also share DNA with other, less simian animals.
Apes, Monkeys, And Humans
Humans are most closely related to the great apes of the family Hominidae. This family includes orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and bonobos. Of the great apes, humans share 98.8 % of their DNA with bonobos and chimpanzees. Humans and gorillas share 98.4 % of their DNA. Once the apes are not native to Africa however, the differences in DNA increase. Humans and orangutans share 96.9 % of their DNA. Humans and monkeys share approximately 93 %.
Mice
Humans and mice share nearly 90% of human DNA. This is important because mice have been used in laboratories as experimental animals for research into human disease processes for years. Mice are currently used in genetic research to test gene replacement, and gene therapy because they have similar gene types to those of humans and will have similar reactions to diseases and disease processes.
Dogs
Humans and dogs share 84 % of their DNA, which again, makes them useful animals to study human disease processes. Researchers are particularly interested in specific diseases that affect both dogs and humans. Retinal disease, cataracts, and retinitis pigmentosa blind both humans and their canine friends, and scientists study and research treatments of the disease in dogs in the hope that the same treatments will be beneficial to humans. Dogs are also being studied and treated for cancer, epilepsy, and allergies, to find more successful treatment for humans.
Chickens
Of course, humans, dogs, mice and apes are going to have DNA in common. They are all mammals. Humans and birds are a different matter. Yet they, too, share a lot of DNA -- 65 %. Understanding the similarities and differences between human and avian DNA is important. First, because chickens make proteins, such as interferon, that are helpful to human immunity, and need to be further studied. Second, because viruses like the ones that cause the flu cross between birds and humans and need to be studied so that vaccines can be invented and improved.
That is an interesting idea since the central dogma of molecular biology can be summarised to the statement "DNA must arise from DNA" (excluding reverse transcription) and this is translated and transcribed into proteins. It is important to remember some mutations are beneficial, others move the organism closer to a more optimized protein and others are harmful. However, this does not solve the problem of where did DNA emerge from in the first place.
I disagree with bashing Dawkin's as well, he caused a minor paradigm shift in evolutionary biology which explains limitations in previous theories of evolution.
That book is a fascinating read by the way...he explains the many ways in which species evolve that goes far beyond random genetic mutations which is what most of the public is told, and he makes the argument that DNA can't spontaneously form out of nowhere...
That's a classic Straw Man Fallacy, which is 10 reasons to throw the book in the trash and forget what he said.
Only creationists and intelligent design nutters make such claims. Real scientists have never claimed that DNA "spontaneously" formed.
The fact that the author doesn't even understand the basic concepts of Evolution is another red flag.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
