The first Britons were black, Natural History Museum DNA study reveals

[Moltuae]

Many scientists believe in God. In fact, most scientists believe in God

I think you'll find that's untrue. Some scientists believe in 'A' god but not many, and certainly not "most". Don't confuse god analogies made my scientists such as Hawking or Einstein with belief, or the god references science personalities may make for the sake of diplomacy. You have to remember that some people have a lot of time and emotions invested in their faith and are easily offended by the slightest suggestion that what they believe may not be true (case in point, the article that started this thread). As a scientist, you're acutely aware that you're walking on eggshells with these people so a lot of scientists choose not to denounce religion. From my own science background and education, I personally know a few scientists and public-speaking science professors who are atheists, yet they diplomatically avoid making statements that may be deemed anti-religious. In fact, like many of the great scientists, they'll often make vague references to 'god' so as not to offend or exclude those who find it hard to accept science without letting go of their beliefs.

But you claim it is not a computer based on what?

I think you're focusing too much on the word 'computer' here. I have explained the differences between this type of biological 'computer' and man-made computers, but you seem to be unable to see past this computer metaphor used by the researchers and scientists as if that somehow makes it the same as a computer that has been designed by humans. I don't know what your level of programming experience is, but if you have ever written software, you'll know that it consists of lines of code, executed conditionally, sequentially and/or in loops. If you were looking for a creator, those would be the telltale signs to look for. The type of 'programming' we're seeing here is much more like the self-learning/adapting programming we find in neural networks, or the programming of gates/nodes like we find in FPGAs. There is no more reason to assume that god flicked all the switches in a biological array of 'programmable' cells than there is to assume that god flicked all the DNA switches that made the staggering number of different species that exist on this planet (although of course some people believe that too!). This is 'programming' on a huge timescale, with continuous and gradual modifications or 'updates' through the process of natural selection, the 'versioning' of which is evident simply by studying ancestral DNA.

Digital model of the cancer cell – is this the time for us to debug/reprogram the cancer cell?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4707930/

So, do you believe also that god 'programmed' the cancer cell? (Not sure that's a god I'd want to associate with if he did). Or is that the work of the devil? In which case, is the devil a better programmer than god?

Also, from the article you posted:

Some scientists refer to the coding DNA as a program code, but from the informatics’ point of view this is not a god analogy. Most computer languages make a distinction between programs and other data on which programs operate. The program code is a set of instructions executed directly by the computer's central processing unit. These instructions define what happens to the data that are also digitally coded but are not a program code.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

I think you'll find that's untrue. Some scientists believe in 'A' god but not many, and certainly not "most". Don't confuse god analogies made my scientists such as Hawking or Einstein with belief, or the god references science personalities may make for the sake of diplomacy.

Well there are surveys drawing all sorts of conclusions based who was doing the survey. And it doesn't really matter if it is most or a minority. But many do believe in a higher power. I like how Freeman Dyson puts it:

Within science, all causes must be local and instrumental. Purpose is not acceptable as an explanation of scientific phenomena. Action at a distance, either in space or time, is forbidden. Especially, teleological influences of final goals upon phenomena are forbidden. How do we reconcile this prohibition with our human experience of purpose and with our faith in a universal purpose? I make the reconciliation possible by restricting the scope of science. The choice of laws of nature, and the choice of initial conditions for the universe, are questions belonging to meta-science and not to science. Science is restricted to the explanation of phenomena within the universe. Teleology is not forbidden when explanations go beyond science.

I personally know a few scientists and public-speaking science professors who are atheists, yet they diplomatically avoid making statements that may be deemed anti-religious.

I don't doubt that. Especially among professors.

I think you're focusing too much on the word 'computer' here. I have explained the differences between this type of biological 'computer' and man-made computers, but you seem to be unable to see past this computer metaphor used by the researchers and scientists as if that somehow makes it the same as a computer that has been designed by humans.

Why do you think it matters whether or not it is a metaphor? It is completely and totally meaningless. If someone knows Windows and wants to learn Linux, a popular methods of teaching the new system is by using metaphors. So if I teach you Linux using metaphors, after we are done, which of those is no longer a computer? I mean it was just a metaphor. What matters is does it compute? And the genome CLEARLY AND INDISPUTABLY computes. Therefore it IS a computer and NOT just a metaphor.

So, do you believe also that god 'programmed' the cancer cell? (Not sure that's a god I'd want to associate with if he did). Or is that the work of the devil? In which case, is the devil a better programmer than god?

Now if you want to get completely and totally sidetracked into theology based on beliefs. Then I would go with God created us perfect in every way. But this is a fallen world. Introducing death and imperfection.

Sin would act like a virus in the genomic computer causing malfunctions. Cancer is caused by methylation. Methylation is like preexisting on/off switches in a computer. The virus is tripping a switch.

Epigenetics: The sins of the father
https://www.nature.com/news/epigenetics-the-sins-of-the-father-1.14816

 

[Moltuae]

Then I would go with God created us perfect in every way. But this is a fallen world. Introducing death and imperfection.

Sin would act like a virus in the genomic computer causing malfunctions. Cancer is caused by methylation. Methylation is like preexisting on/off switches in a computer. The virus is tripping a switch.

So who do you believe made the viruses?

And if he made us perfect, how did we succumb to sin and disease? Didn't he see those coming?

 

[alluseridsrejected]

So who do you believe made the viruses?

It is really not my intent to turn this into a Bible study

So who do you believe made the viruses?

And if he made us perfect, how did we succumb to sin and disease? Didn't he see those coming?

So before we move in an entirely new direction, one I hesitate to go into here at Technibble. Can we establish that you now accept the genome is a computer? That we are planning to adapt it as our computer of the future? And that is is perfectly reasonable to believe computers have programmers? Because your questions are going into the next step of who created the computer and why. For which there is no current scientific evidence. Because I fully accept (while it is not my personal belief) that from an evidence point of view, it could have been flying spaghetti aliens instead of God and I do not pretend to claim science at this point can distinguish between the two.

 

[Moltuae]

I thought we'd been over the 'computer' part. Maybe I'm not explaining very well. Perhaps the best way is if we answer each other's questions directly.

Let me start by directly answering your questions here ...

Can we establish that you now accept the genome is a computer? That we are planning to adapt it as our computer of the future?

That much is true. And I have always "accepted" that fact. By definition it is a computer of sorts.

And that is is perfectly reasonable to believe computers have programmers?

This is where you're making the leap, mistaking the 'programming' for lines of code, it is not. Even the article you posted makes that clear. It's environmental 'programming' which works in much the same way as evolution.

So what I'm trying to establish when I ask "So who do you believe made the viruses?", is why do you believe the genome must have a programmer if a virus does not. I don't wish to turn this into a Bible study either, I'm just trying to understand your logic. You state that god must've programmed the genome (which you tell me he did so with great perfection) and then something like a virus is able to modify the code. So I'm confused, are you saying it takes a god to make the code but anyone or anything can modify it? And how did the viruses come to be?

 

[alluseridsrejected]

So what I'm trying to establish when I ask "So who do you believe made the viruses?", is why do you believe the genome must have a programmer if a virus does not. I don't wish to turn this into a Bible study either, I'm just trying to understand your logic. You state that god must've programmed the genome (which you tell me he did so with great perfection) and then something like a virus is able to modify the code. So I'm confused, are you saying it takes a god to make the code but anyone or anything can modify it? And how did the viruses come to be?

Yes, a virus genome is either DNA or RNA and would be a computer. As would all life forms.

 

[phaZed]

This thread has turned embarrassing.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

This thread has turned embarrassing.

So is this an embarrassing peer reviewed scientific paper for you?

Comparing genomes to computer operating systems in terms of the topology and evolution of their regulatory control networks
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/20/9186.full

or are you embarrassed when scientists create images like this?:

or write papers like this?:

DNA.EXE: A Sequence Comparison between the Human Genome and Computer Code
https://www.researchgate.net/public...on_between_the_Human_Genome_and_Computer_Code

I never realized there were computer subjects off limits at Technibble.

 

[Moltuae]

Yes, a virus genome is either DNA or RNA and would be a computer. As would all life forms.

Ok, I see. And presumably we're saying that this viral DNA/RNA requires a programmer too, yes?

Without getting into biblical notions of good vs evil, what's your theory on who that programmer might be?

And I'm still a little confused how this theory explains the small changes that are made to DNA/RNA, such as changes resulting from evolution, disease or reproduction for example. What are your view on how the code becomes modified here, or do you believe those changes to be too small to require a professional programmer?




On a lighter note, this discussion of computers and heavenly programmers reminded me of this Red Dwarf scene:

"Then where do all the calculators go!?"

 

[alluseridsrejected]

And presumably we're saying that this viral DNA/RNA requires a programmer too, yes?

Yes, I would say so. miRNA contains a microprocessor complex. How can something other than a computer contain a microprocessor?

definition: microprocessor - an integrated circuit that contains all the functions of a central processing unit of a computer.

Processing of primary microRNAs by the Microprocessor complex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15531879

So then either the genome is a computer or something other than computers contain microprocessors.

Without getting into biblical notions of good vs evil, what's your theory on who that programmer might be?

I wouldn't know how to answer that w/o going straight to where you just asked me not to go. Now I will give you an answer if you want me to go there.

And speaking of silly videos (about a serious matter), and I certainly hope none here ever needs to find out about this, but I wouldn't recommend slapping this guy and calling him a loon if you ever need his help:

Battling Cancer Using Epigenetics | Science: Out of the Box

What are your view on how the code becomes modified here, or do you believe those changes to be too small to require a professional programmer?

I believe it is a superior program. Far superior to any AI man has created. It is programmed in a manor that makes it highly adaptable.

 

[phaZed]

So is this an embarrassing peer reviewed scientific paper for you?

No, it's not embarrassing for me. Considering that I know the difference between a "Comparison" and a "Scientific Conclusion", and which one constitutes a truth and which does not, do you?

In your first "paper", the differences can't be more stark between E.Coli and an OS. The picture you have linked (Master Regulator, Middle Manager and workhorse) is an arbitrary grouping of functions, chosen by the researchers - as stated in the paper itself, and is not representative of anything other than hierarchy grouping. What you are taking from that is, "Wow! Look at that both an OS and E.Coli have a Master Regulator, Middle Manager and Workhorse! They are the same!"
However, everyone else that reads that paper (including the researchers) think "Wow! Look at that hierarchical chart and how different they are. Clearly not the same at all!"

In your second link.. it's not a "peer-reviewed Scientific Paper" - It was a conference piece spoken at Proceedings of the Symposium... it is the definition of "Not a scientific paper", but rather, the ideas of one man. The guy even gets this wrong:

"Further, blocks of data are stored at the beginning or end of a file, while the primary instructions occupy the middle of a file." - when speaking of an EXE. Sorry, blocks of data are stored in the middle, that would be between the COFF Fields and Header and Pointer Tables (At the beginning) and the 'Section Table' at the End.

So, without that comparison even being remotely true, it puts the rest of his "paper" (Talk) in a precarious stance:

...creates the same organizational patterns observed in human chromosome arms, where repetitive sequences are grouped near the telomeres and centromeres.

Well, seeing as an EXE file doesn't, I guess the talk is BS then.

Here's an EXE file: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Portable_Executable_32_bit_Structure.png

 

[alluseridsrejected]

In your first "paper", the differences can't be more stark between E.Coli and an OS. The picture you have linked (Master Regulator, Middle Manager and workhorse) is an arbitrary grouping of functions, chosen by the researchers - as stated in the paper itself, and is not representative of anything other than hierarchy grouping. What you are taking from that is, "Wow! Look at that both an OS and E.Coli have a Master Regulator, Middle Manager and Workhorse! They are the same!"
However, everyone else that reads that paper (including the researchers) think "Wow! Look at that hierarchical chart and how different they are. Clearly not the same at all!"

No, not exactly. In fact not at all. From the research I have done, what they are saying is Yes they are similar but inverse. But the conclusions are, Wow! look how much more efficient the genome is than man's computers. Wow!, Man could create much better computers if we could learn to inverse the process the way the genome does. Sorry if you missed that.

 

[phaZed]

So, where did it say that?

'Cause the "Discussion"/Conclusion of that paper says your full of it.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

So, where did it say that?

'Cause the "Discussion"/Conclusion of that paper says your full of it.

From the same discussion you say makes me full of it:

The low overlap between modules in biological networks, on the other hand, increases robustness.

The biological networks are more robust.

definition robustness: the quality or condition of being strong and in good condition.
he ability to withstand or overcome adverse conditions or rigorous testing.

 

[NJW]

... but it was a metaphor.

Well, you would say that now.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

Well, you would say that now.

I am still waiting on a reply concerning moltuae's claim it is just a metaphor so I will repeat it for here:

Why do you think it matters whether or not it is a metaphor? It is completely and totally meaningless. If someone knows Windows and wants to learn Linux, a popular methods of teaching the new system is by using metaphors. So if I teach you Linux using metaphors, after we are done, which of those is no longer a computer? I mean it was just a metaphor. What matters is does it compute? And the genome CLEARLY AND INDISPUTABLY computes. Therefore it IS a computer and NOT just a metaphor.

 

[NJW]

Hey, don't quote me – I'm just sitting in the back row sharing popcorn with a few others.

 

[phaZed]

You said "Wow! look how much more efficient the genome is than man's computers. Wow!, Man could create much better computers if we could learn to inverse the process the way the genome does. Sorry if you missed that."

of which I asked "So, Where did it say that"

Then you respond with Robustness. So, the answer to my question I posed to you is: it didn't say that and you are rebutting with a totally different thing. That makes you wrong, and that's OK.. it's accepting the fact that your wrong that makes you the bigger man.

Efficiency and Robustness are not the same thing and are usually inverse to each other.

Yet again, you are showing us stark differences between the Genome et. al. and computers - Genomes are Robust, whereas computers are efficient.

 

[phaZed]

And the genome CLEARLY AND INDISPUTABLY computes. Therefore it IS a computer and NOT just a metaphor.

OK, I want you to import a set of data, compute it, and then produce a result - using DNA. Then we will all concede DNA is a computer.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

Efficiency and Robustness are not the same thing and are usually inverse to each other.

Oh, excuse me. Yes, more robust, not more efficient. That is straw you are grasping at? I am wrong because I used a different word describing the idea that the paper is saying one is better than the other?