Posted on 03/05/2002 9:45:44 PM PST by Southack
This is part two of the famous "Million Monkeys Typing On Keyboards for a Million Years Could Produce The Works of Shakespeare" - Debunked Mathematically.
For the Thread that inadvertently kicked started these mathematical discussions, Click Here
For the Original math thread, Click Here
If you meant to say that it depends entirely on content, then I agree. It is the data stored by the unique sequence of bases that matters, just as it is the data that is stored in its proper sequence that distinguishes one computer program from another, or one digital song from another on a DVD or CD-ROM.
No, because a sequence is interpreted differently depending on its context. The simplest example is frame. Any small random sequence, say 3 bases, has functional meaning in the context of neighboring sequences or environmental molecules.
"Context" doesn't negate what I said about data, contrary to your assertation above. One must first have the data before context even comes into play.
A human can be considered to be "context" in a video-game analogy. The data code for the computer program remains the same no matter which human plays the game, no matter what responses said human makes while executing the game program.
But the results of the game can be vastly different based upon that human context.
Nonetheless, it is the data that comprises the program in question that distinguishes one software game from another, NOT the "context" as you insinuate above...
That's why I think software is a poor analogy for DNA.
What?! Not only is human software a good analogy for DNA, but DNA is genetic programming!
Gene's are subroutines. Likewise, A, C, G, and T bases are the Base 4 equivilent to human 0's and 1's for our Base 2 (AKA "binary") systems. Re-sequence either and you can get different organisms, features, or programs, respectively.
On the contrary, genetic programming is very real.
With genetic programming, science can create useful organs for humans by growing them in pigs. This is performed via gene-splicing, which copies genetic code for an entire subroutine/gene into the host.
Likewise, human programmers commonly copy complete subroutines from one software program into others.
Context can affect the output results, but it does not invalidate the original data. Please review the video-game analogy above if you are still unclear on the distinction between context and code.
It's very real but it isn't life. There are still many limitations to genetic programming, even when they can be useful. At most they imitate domestic breeding programs, not natural selection.
With genetic programming, science can create useful organs for humans by growing them in pigs.
This has nothing to do with genetic programming. Genetic engineering is a different concept entirely.
"It's very real but it isn't life." - Nebullis
That's a non-sequitur. Genetic programming is still analogous to other forms of programming, such as human-driven computer software programming, whether either one is "life" or not. Your qualification is beside the point, hence, a non-sequitur.
"This has nothing to do with genetic programming. Genetic engineering is a different concept entirely." - Nebullis
On the contrary, genetic engineering is merely the science of genetic programming. To genetically engineer new organic behavior, we currently move existing genetic programming from one DNA strand to another in our host.
That's why we have the term "gene-splicing" - because we are "cutting" one segment of DNA code (aka, a "gene") and splicing it into another DNA strand.
Forms of gene splicing happen spontaneously in nature as well. Small segments of DNA are carried from organism to organism via plasmid or virus and even as simple segments of DNA.
Of course, computer viri do likewise.
Hence, yet another of thousands of reasons why the analogy between software programs and DNA code is completely valid.
It can. The simplest example is codon reduncy. Mutations in two bases will be neutral until, and this is key, until a certain third base is changed, at which time the neutral changes are fixed by selection together with the third change. Similarly, neutral changes can take place in non-functional regions of proteins.
Not everything falls under natural selection. There are other forces and constraints such as physical and developmental, which act on evolution.
It's valid for the points which you and I just mentioned. But just because we can copy parts of nature and get ideas for computers from biology, does not mean that these concepts can be taken as fully representing life. That is, the limitations of software do not apply to life. Life, as a whole, is too complex to model any more precisely than semantically. This does not mean the semantic theories are incorrect. When pieces of the theories are mathematically modeled, they bear out correctly.
You do realize that you are posting your new claim about math on a thread that uses math to illustrate that life would have to be capable of forming from a DNA strand of fewer than 96 total codons (for Evolution to be naturally possible), don't you?
For perspective (as to whether or not Evolutionary Theory is supported by math), an amoebae, one of the simplist forms of known life, generally has several hundred Million codons in its DNA.
"It's valid for the points which you and I just mentioned." - Nebullis
So you are now finally agreeing with me that computer software code is a rock solid analogy to DNA code?
Exactly. It's like saying that bats have two ears, therefore monkeys can't fly. Yes, bats have two ears and yes, monkeys can't fly, but there isn't any logical connection between the two statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.