Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OldNavyVet

==Meyer’s use of the term “digital” tells me that Meyer is an idiot.

Still waiting for your reply. Would it be fair to say that it is you who are deserving of your characterization of Dr. Meyer if it turns out that you are completely wrong (and he is 100% correct) re: DNA being a digital code???


28 posted on 11/17/2009 12:17:44 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: GodGunsGuts

Digital means 0s and 1s are stored. DNA is analog. Show us how you get zeros and ones out of DNA.


29 posted on 11/17/2009 12:34:03 PM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts

Digital means 0s and 1s are stored. DNA is analog. Show us how you get zeros and ones out of DNA.


30 posted on 11/17/2009 12:34:18 PM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts

Please a look at post 7.

It supports my contention that Meyer is an idiot.

Feel better?


33 posted on 11/17/2009 12:54:28 PM PST by OldNavyVet (A word to the wise. Don't drink the KoolAid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: GodGunsGuts; OldNavyVet
Dr. Meyer if it turns out that you are completely wrong (and he is 100% correct) re: DNA being a digital code???

I agree that DNA is digital, in that it's primary structure (simple sequence) encoding is in the form of discrete rather than continuous values, i.e. particular nucleotides.

But the "100%" emphatic goes too far. Although many of the aspects have, I think, yet to be well understood, DNA certainly also functions in analogue modes. My understanding of this subject matter is poor, but it seems pretty clear to me that things like, for instance, the complex manner in which DNA is packed and unpacked, must have a lot to do with tertiary structure (basically the 3-D shape of DNA).

This is kind of ironic, really, since you often say things like this:

And let’s not forget the neo-Darwinian reductionist beads-on-a-string notion of genetics is being completely overturned by the new biology.

And yet here you are, treating DNA as if it's digital "beads-on-a-string" aspect represented "100%" of it's significance and all of how it's functions are encoded.

Equally ironic, you've also frequently derided "evolutionists" for assuming that "junk" (properly "non-coding") DNA is without function. (As with the "beads-on-a-string" argument, evolutionists don't actually assume this, you just say they do in furtherance of straw-man abuse.)

But certainly many aspects of non-coding DNA function have to do with analogue (continuously variable) factors, rather than digital (discrete, discontinuously variable) factors. For instance the functional significance of repeating DNA is obviously related to continuously variable factors such as the length and number of repeats.

47 posted on 11/18/2009 12:24:28 AM PST by Stultis (Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia; Democrats always opposed waterboarding as torture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson