tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1204869294590381272..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The problem of the origin of life has been solved and creationists are terrifiedLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19385229175889174772015-01-14T15:31:08.516-05:002015-01-14T15:31:08.516-05:00Shakin' in my boots!Shakin' in my boots!bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33874916854391923062015-01-14T10:39:14.317-05:002015-01-14T10:39:14.317-05:00Ed, Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussen, well said.Ed, Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussen, well said.bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20357386300222511512015-01-14T09:24:25.825-05:002015-01-14T09:24:25.825-05:00"Is it realistic to assert that the human org...<i>"Is it realistic to assert that the human organism is far, far more advanced than any software Microsoft has ever created?"</i><br /><br />Define "advanced". Give me a way to measure "advancedness".Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88535672648261638992015-01-14T04:18:00.596-05:002015-01-14T04:18:00.596-05:00bFast says,
Actually, it would appear that Dr. Mo...bFast says,<br /><br /><i>Actually, it would appear that Dr. Moran actually thinks that the origin of life was substantively solved in the video presentation -- or at least that's what his headline says.</i><br /><br />Don't forget the part about creationists being terrified. bFast, are you terrified?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38299780945780829522015-01-14T03:53:16.567-05:002015-01-14T03:53:16.567-05:00"However, the topic is the origin of life,&qu...<i>"However, the topic is the origin of life," We seem to be on slightly different wavelengths. I thought we were discussing the comparison between DNA and a computer, with Bill Gates' quote factored in</i><br /><br />Well, that discussion goes no further than 'he thinks it is, I don't'.<br /><br />Presumably you are persuaded that life needed a programmer, so it matters whether one thinks that <i>translation</i> is the fundamental issue needing coding, or something else. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63693527972805295762015-01-14T02:39:03.187-05:002015-01-14T02:39:03.187-05:00And while we're on the subject of Bill's q...And while we're on the subject of Bill's quotes:<br />"I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system, and possibly program, of all time."<br /><br />Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81523406494599654382015-01-14T02:08:39.968-05:002015-01-14T02:08:39.968-05:00So it's down to complexity? More DNA = organis...So it's down to complexity? More DNA = organism is more complex? Like more software code = more complex computerprogram?<br /><br />Furthermore, you lightly skip over the fact, basically ignore actually, that +/- 90% of the human software prodcues nothing, broken output, wrong output. Do tell, would you hire a programmer with such crappy skills? <br />And while windows 3.1 won't be winning the 'all time best computer program ever' award, it didn't contain 90% garbage.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63178330552926338612015-01-14T00:52:45.622-05:002015-01-14T00:52:45.622-05:00In other words, irony is lost on you.In other words, irony is lost on you.Piotr GÄ…siorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49487428902499798482015-01-14T00:28:47.301-05:002015-01-14T00:28:47.301-05:00Ok, fine, lets not deal with whether DNA is like a...Ok, fine, lets not deal with whether DNA is like a computer program. Lets deal with Gates' second assertion: "but far, far more advanced than any software ever created." Is this assertion true -- not for the simplest form of life, but for the most advanced. Is it realistic to assert that the human organism is far, far more advanced than any software Microsoft has ever created?"bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85218503800343496162015-01-14T00:26:02.402-05:002015-01-14T00:26:02.402-05:00Actually, it would appear that Dr. Moran actually ...Actually, it would appear that Dr. Moran actually thinks that the origin of life was substantively solved in the video presentation -- or at least that's what his headline says.bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24324383520512600802015-01-13T20:55:46.448-05:002015-01-13T20:55:46.448-05:00Apparently the sentiment that no one here actually...Apparently the sentiment that no one here <i>actually</i> thinks the origin of life was substantively solved in the video presentation was lost on you. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39017923636929968402015-01-13T19:58:39.737-05:002015-01-13T19:58:39.737-05:00"However, the topic is the origin of life,&qu..."However, the topic is the origin of life," We seem to be on slightly different wavelengths. I thought we were discussing the comparison between DNA and a computer, with Bill Gates' quote factored in.<br /><br />As far as origin of life goes, well I wasted an hour watching the attached video. I saw no one in the video suggest that they had solved the OOL problem. I saw a physicist propose a new direction for OOL search -- a direction that allows for selection without replication. <br /><br />As such I think Salon's claim, regurgitated by Dr. Moran, to be way off in left field. I find nothing in this thread that enhances the long debated discussion of OOL.bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36214353534741527122015-01-13T18:02:33.659-05:002015-01-13T18:02:33.659-05:00"Not one of you have taken even a simple whac...<i>"Not one of you have taken even a simple whack at the question, "Is Bill Gates' assertion correct"?"</i><br /><br />That's because it is utterly irrelevant whether DNA is <i>like</i> "a computer program" to the question of how it arose. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52587903295561685162015-01-13T17:24:58.128-05:002015-01-13T17:24:58.128-05:00This is an inexactitude, is it not? Many proteins,...<i>This is an inexactitude, is it not? Many proteins, especially those of the core machinery of life, are ultra-conserved.</i><br /><br />OK, it is a generalisation.You made a very general statement that 'DNA is like code', I made an equally general statement along the lines of 'no, it is not', and you pick on the few genes that resemble code <i>only</i> in their apparent 'brittleness'! <br /><br /><i>It would stand to Darwinian reason that if a gene is ultra-conserved, it is because that gene is very brittle</i><br /><br />Well, it would indicate that something is pinning that sequence in place other than vague 'function'. The most highly conserved proteins tend to be non-catalytic, and not especially complex. It is the case that certain sequences cannot be readily changed, because <i>now</i> a whole system exists around them. But there is nothing essential about their sequence; it's contingent. Ubiquitin, for instance, which tags proteins for destruction. It is 'brittle' in the way that "https://" is brittle. It is not the only sequence in the whole of protein space that could possibly function as a protein tag, it is one that (presumably) arose early and stuck. Once it became embedded, opportunities for amendment are severely curtailed. It hardly needed a master programmer to come up with it. Likewise histones, which could in principle have many forms but don't, because they are intimately connected with physical DNA and changes now tend to be fatal. This does not mean that changes would always have been fatal. <i>Genes that don't evolve</i> are hardly a major problem for evolution to explain!<br /><br /><i>Me: "But anyway, what makes you think that protein is essential for life?" You: "Did I say that? As I reread my posts, the closest I got was to say that all life uses ATP, generated via ATP Synthase." </i><br /><br />Yes, in defense of your 'DNA is code' thesis, you immediately talked of protein and the assertion that "a change in the code produces a change in the resultant product (proteins)". However, the topic is the origin of life, and if the original organism did not have translation or anything like it, I'm not sure where that leaves the 'DNA is code' issue, other than something for Phase ll.AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63867890152920206942015-01-13T17:05:47.126-05:002015-01-13T17:05:47.126-05:00bFast says,
Many proteins, especially those of t...bFast says,<br /><br /><i> Many proteins, especially those of the core machinery of life, are ultra-conserved.</i><br /><br />The most highly conserved proteins have about 35% sequence identity between eukaryotic and prokaryotic species. What that means is that in the best possible scenario 65% of the amino acids can be substituted without losing function. <br /><br />Most of the "core" proteins like ribosomal proteins, RNA polymerase, and metabolic enzymes show much less conservation and some aren't conserved at all. <br /><br /><i> It would stand to Darwinian reason that if a gene is ultra-conserved, it is because that gene is very brittle.</i><br /><br />Conversely, if a gene is not ultra-conserved then it isn't very brittle. This is a case where nasty little facts spoil your beautiful theory. Too bad. Better luck next time. Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19446513109641759972015-01-13T16:43:23.923-05:002015-01-13T16:43:23.923-05:00By the way, that sentence quote-mined from Bill Ga...By the way, that sentence quote-mined from Bill Gates is hardly an "assertion"; it's a mere <i>obiter dictum</i> -- surely not something Bill Gates intended to become a meme and start a life of its own on the Internet. As stupid people quote it after one another, they don't bother to check the context but never forget to appeal to authority -- "thus spake Bill Gates" -- as if it mattered a whit.Piotr GÄ…siorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84431889734040854562015-01-13T16:39:32.351-05:002015-01-13T16:39:32.351-05:00"Proteins are nowhere near as brittle as comp..."Proteins are nowhere near as brittle as computer programs. They have many degrees of freedom; they don't just bail out with a data exception at the first sign of trouble."<br /><br />This is an inexactitude, is it not? Many proteins, especially those of the core machinery of life, are ultra-conserved. It would stand to Darwinian reason that if a gene is ultra-conserved, it is because that gene is very brittle. I will agree that modern computer code is much more brittle than most proteins. However, there are many parts of a computer program that are not very brittle at all. If, for instance, the change is in a string that is intended to display on a screen, you will merely get a sqelling error.<br /><br />"But anyway, what makes you think that protein is essential for life?" Did I say that? As I reread my posts, the closest I got was to say that all life uses ATP, generated via ATP Synthase. This is a statement of current fact. I do not find RNA world research to be irrelevant, for instance. bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33553153655784151452015-01-13T16:28:24.034-05:002015-01-13T16:28:24.034-05:00The 'code' in translation produces a 3 dim...The 'code' in translation produces a 3 dimensional physical structure, a protein. This is more like 3D printing than programming - though, again, I think one can get hopelessly misled by analogies. Proteins are nowhere near as brittle as computer programs. They have many degrees of freedom; they don't just bail out with a data exception at the first sign of trouble. The space of protein sequences surrounding any given protein sequence is stuffed with functional proteins; not so the space of 1-character amendments surrounding any piece of code. They are just different things. <br /><br />'Most' changes may be deleterious; evolution only has a problem when they ALL are. <br /><br />But anyway, what makes you think that protein is essential for life? Its universal presence in modern life is not contested, but we would see exactly what we see in a world where non-protein life had simply gone extinct, outcompeted by the superor catalysts produced by the protein world. Protein is certainly not the only material from which one can make biological catalysts. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91996716606067457532015-01-13T16:15:43.867-05:002015-01-13T16:15:43.867-05:00You said, "And MY opinion is, because of thei...You said, "And MY opinion is, because of their unique stereochemistry, yes they could." Is this your response to Bill Gates' assertion? <br /><br />On software development, how is your assembly language skill? When you develop code in a high level language, do you have a reasonably clear picture of the resultant machine language? Do you have any experience with languages that cross the code/data barrier (execute data as code) such as LISP and fourth?<br /><br />I have never seen anything in DNA that resembles a stack. However, a change in the "code" produces changes in the resultant product (proteins.) This produces changes, very usually deleterious when in protein coding sections, to the resultant organism. This is the same as my computer software. When the code is changed, the subroutine is changed. A changed subroutine will change the way the program functions. If these changes are random, the result is most usually deleterious.<br /><br />As to your comment below, bFast = Gary? No.bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80666788943497645472015-01-13T16:00:49.786-05:002015-01-13T16:00:49.786-05:00bFast:
my work has won multiple national awards, ...bFast:<br /><br /><i>my work has won multiple national awards, and I have been issued multiple software patents.</i><br /><br />Gary? Is that you?AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43032646447323428722015-01-13T15:50:41.275-05:002015-01-13T15:50:41.275-05:00Not one of you have taken even a simple whack at t...<i>Not one of you have taken even a simple whack at the question, "Is Bill Gates' assertion correct"?</i><br /><br />I thought I had. No, his assertion is not correct. Mine is. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62773314894077639872015-01-13T15:31:06.075-05:002015-01-13T15:31:06.075-05:00Not one of you have taken even a simple whack at t...Not one of you have taken even a simple whack at the question, "Is Bill Gates' assertion correct"?<br /><br />Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussen, "Also, you don't know what neither the words agnostic or atheist means." Oh, please enlighten me. bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31468881904507237702015-01-13T15:17:43.811-05:002015-01-13T15:17:43.811-05:00So what do you make of someone who did biochemistr...So what do you make of someone who did biochemistry to postgrad level and is now a jobbing computer programmer who thinks DNA resembles a program barely at all? That would be me, by the way. I entered grad school a 'comfortable atheist', and remain so, because there are certainly no fewer difficulties in getting a 'programmer' to ignite the spark of life than having gradients of electrochemical potential achieve it unaided. Those very same gradients seriously hamper the ability of said 'chemical programmer' to manipulate matter at single-atom level and get the ball rolling, in a way I doubt you fully appreciate. <br /><br />We could trade anecdotes and supposedly expert opinion (Bill Gates? An anonymous postdoc?) all day. It's basically meaningless. The basic question is: <i>could</i> nucleic acids arise uncoded? And MY opinion is, because of their unique stereochemistry, yes they could. Programs don't have stereochemical antiparallel symmetry, which appears to be a vital ingredient in the role of the nucleic acids, and has nothing whatever to do with programming. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71120647707842436272015-01-13T15:16:29.411-05:002015-01-13T15:16:29.411-05:00"Don't look too close at what goes on ins..."<b>Don't look too close at what goes on inside the cell, it might amaze you.</b>"<br /><br />The general public is about 85-90% theist. Among scientists in general(all fields), this drops to about 50%. Among philosophers, this goes down to 30%. Among biologists and cosmologists, this drops to about 10%. Among <i>evolutionary</i> biologists, it's 98% atheists. <br /><br />Seems that the closer you look at how the world works, including biology, the less reason for god you find. Weird. <br /><br />Also, you don't know what neither the words agnostic or atheist means. <br />Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19591047495642003882015-01-13T13:48:27.754-05:002015-01-13T13:48:27.754-05:00photosynthesis, Google's top link for "Bi...photosynthesis, Google's top link for "Bill Gates DNA", http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/336336-dna-is-like-a-computer-program-but-far-far-more You could have found that yourself, rather than slander creationists.<br /><br />The question that needs to be asked is, "Is Bill Gates' assertion correct"?<br /><br />Whether from genotype or phenotype analysis I see it as being correct. About 3 gig of data (including any junk) defines a human being. There are 20,000 protein coding genes, but somewhere around 1 million protein variants in the human body. A cnc/3d print factory that could produce anything close to a working mouse would require far more than 3 gig of code. (Make sure the mouse can do the basics: find food, outsmart traps etc.) The more I look at DNA the more amazed I am at how superior the code is to anything that I have written -- and my work has won multiple national awards, and I have been issued multiple software patents.<br /><br />Please inform me of how simple DNA is. Please inform me of just how simple ATP synthase is, as it produces the primary energy used by all known life. How do I know? Had an extensive chat with a Ph.D. biologist who entered grad school as a comfortable atheist, did his thesis on ATP Synthase, and came out a confused agnostic. <br /><br />Don't look too close at what goes on inside the cell, it might amaze you.bFasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13584931926133025618noreply@blogger.com