Who Made The Code? (page 2)

Perry

The odds of the chance formation of just one function of DNA - much less all of the applications of DNA - are so remote, they are far beyond statistical zero which is 10 with 50 zeros . The chance formation of DNA has been calculated at 10 89190 zeros

"This means that 10 with 1089190 exponential zeros DNA molecules, on average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code 124 proteins. 10 with 89190 exponential zeros DNAs would weigh 10 with 89147 exponential zeros MORE than the earth ... A quantity of DNA this colossal could never have been formed."

- R.L. Wysong, The Creation Evolution Controversy, (Inquiry Press, Midland MI, 1976) p.115, as quoted in The Evolution Handbook(Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont TN, 2001) p. 261.

yadda yadda 2

Not at all Bohm. The changes do have a genetic basis obviously, but what I'm reading is the changes are not NEW code, they are occurring from complex rearrangements of EXISTING code.

No matter how many trillions of times you mess around with the software code of the first basic Atari game of pong you'll never end up getting Rome 2 or Assassin's Creed. No matter how much you reassemble and rearrange the parts of a mini-coupe, you'll never get a Big Mac truck.

I think it's a very valid question that Darwin never contemplated that remains totally unanswered: Not only where the hell did the original DNA come from but where the hell is all the new code coming from for upwards evolution?

cofty

Regulatory genes or genetic switches were discovered years ago.

It is a fascinating topic and adds a huge amount of credibility to the power of evolution.

"Darwin's Black Box" has finally been unlocked.

If you are interested in becoming less of a dullard Perry may I suggest "The Making of the Fittest" or "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" both by evolutionary developmental biologist Sean B. Carroll.

By the way even allowing for regulatory genes a huge chunk of your genome is still junk.

Did you know the single cell amoebia dubia has a genome of 670 billion base pairs compared to a human genome of 5 billion?

It is totally bulging with parasitic code.

bohm

Perry: do you understand the computation?

Yadda: okay so according to you there was no new code just different code that was not there before?

what would new code be on your definition?

sorry i do not follow the point at all.

Computer code is very different than dna code in ways that make their evolution by natural selection impossible. But if we saw computer games change functionality without a designer, and we saw them get new functionality, and when we examined the code of various games we saw junk code reused in a way indicating common ancestry, like unused code being included in new games while slowly gaining mutations at a rate indicated by evolution, i would say it was reasonable to speculate about common ancestry.

now i know someone will ask who made the computer, but thats one of the ways computer code is not biology.

Viviane

The new information and code came from evolution, which is driven by chemistry and physics. I thought kids learned this stuff in grade schook these days?

prologos

VERY relevant and good discussion, and the "beginning of it ALL" topic is bigger and down the road, back in time.

OnTheWayOut

....just appeared out of rocks and mud.

That sounds more like Christianity. God "just appeared" in the sense that y'all don't believe he had a beginning. Then He made man out of the earth.

Such insulting oversimplification of evolution reveals your total ignorance.

When Darwin promoted his theory in the mid 19th century it was assumed that the cell performed a few simple chemical reactions and was not much different than some kind of chemical goo that got its start in a lightning storm. Now we know that the ....

Now we know. NOW WE KNOW!!!! NOW WE KNOW!!!!

We know that life evolved from simpler life. We know evolution is true. You are correct that Darwin, himself, did not know all the things we know today, but we do know that DNA is a commonality and we do know that it is part of how we know all life is related and that life evolved.

Perry

The term Junk DNA" has already been abandoned Cofty. A few ideologicaly driven people were able to use the term junk DNA for a few years because it suited their rhetoric. This is no longer the case.

"For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as "junk" DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode's work, be consigned to the history books.

Encode is the largest single update to the data from the human genome since its final draft was published in 2003 and the first systematic attempt to work out what the DNA outside protein-coding genes does. The researchers found that it is far from useless: within these regions they have identified more than 10,000 new "genes" that code for components that control how the more familiar protein-coding genes work. Up to 18% of our DNA sequence is involved in regulating the less than 2% of the DNA that codes for proteins. In total, Encode scientists say, about 80% of the DNA sequence can be assigned some sort of biochemical function."

Notwithstanding this outdated argument; my original question is where did all this coding originally come from? Any ideas?

bohm

maxwell relied on a notion of space-time that was wrong, should we throw out all of electromagnetism for that reason and go back to the thor-theory of lightning?

this is so f#cking stupid..

prologos

the code, like everyTHING else was squeezed through the energy funnel in the beginning Big bang singularity and is self-creating NOW.

The ultimate masterpiece, a self - creating universe, with a self - creating code for life

for LIFE, Thank you. to whom it may apply, or concern.

Who Made The Code?

Share this