The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[PatrickHenry]

Well which is it? Clearly lost or a growing power?

There are many unscientific ideas that somehow manage to accumulate followers, and sometimes political power. Look at astrology, socialism, global warming, etc. No end of examples. As I read it, Asimov says that creationism is an idea that has lost out in the scientific arena, yet continues to gather followers from elsewhere in society.

[Sentis]

Crystals do contain data that allows them to grow into complex forms. This makes a crystal an inorganic (well there are organic crystals also) equivalent to DNA. They do not contain genetic data they contain data which allows them to grow from less complex molecular chains to more complex formations.



In fact DNA chains may have formed inside early crystalline structures. mutinaite a naturally forming crystal is being studied as the early birth place of DNA. It is a crystal which has properties which would lend itself to aiding in the development of early amino acid compounds. It absorbs amino acids and contains structures within itself that would aid amino acids in forming complex proteins.


This is sort of off topic but at least it may be of interest to other on this board.

[Sentis]

As my previous post relates the "crystal analogy" is more than analogy. Crystals are less complex but display many of the same basic chemical reactions as DNA does.

You are mistaken DNA does not sexually reproduce (at least that is what I think you mean when you suggest both parents contribute). Animals sexually reproduce by exchanging genetic information in the form of chromosomes not DNA. The DNA of each chromosome is intact and doesn't change it merely expresses it's own structure which reacts with other structures to create the final product. We must look at DNA as its own structure not as a part of the whole because so much more is going on. The DNA itself only changes through replication failure (radiation ,etc) or insertion of new genetic material from an outside force like a virus. Replication failures


to quote you "There are inputs (variable), a program (which sometimes crashes due to external modifications of code and/or data, and an output (living organism). Moreover, the DNA continues to perform computational functions over the life of the organism. I'll buy your "crystal as template" argument, but DNA is not that."

I agree DNA has inputs (Viral, mutational) I agree DNA has outputs or the express of its structure (animals,plants). DNA does not perform computational functions. DNA is a template just like a crystal.

[Sentis]

The end result of Creationist science is to shut down real science.

Lets say all the Evolutionists shut up and went away and all the book alluding to evolution were burned. What would the Creation scientists do.... They would close up shop because their sole purpose is only to disprove evolution not to do science.


If all the Creationists shut up and went away and all religion vanished from the earth real scientists would still be out there studying our universe. Thats the real difference and that is why Dr Asimov wrote what he wrote.

[Southack]

"DNA doesn't process information. DNA crates other life forms when outside forces mutate, rearrange, or otherwise change the template of DNA. Processing does not happen. DNA is merely a template." - Sentis

No, that's completely wrong.

A true template will repeat itself without change. You can stamp out bricks with a brick template, for instance. Put 010101 in and you will get 010101 out (presuming that the proper chemicals are in the proper place at the proper time, at least for our purposes in this debate.

But DNA doesn't just repeat itself. DNA isn't blind. DNA actually PROCESSES the Base 2/Base 4 instruction sets that are represented in its mathematically represented sequences of nucleotides.

In the human software programming world, the "EXIT SUB" command is a useful way to illustrate DNA's radical processing power over and above mere "template" status.

With a template, the data:

Print "Hello"
EXIT SUB
Print "Goodbye" will always yield:
Print "Hello"
EXIT SUB
Print "Goodbye"

But when mathematical instruction sets are actually PROCESSED, a computer will merely output:
Hello

Likewise, when we are creating new medicines in the lab, we insert EXIT SUB commands into the beginning of particular genetic instruction sets in order to effectively "turn off" entire genes.

Now, a "template" doesn't know to turn off various portions of itself, but a DNA system DOES INDEED know to not process certain genes even though all of the actual data for each gene may physically pass through the genetic instruction processor.

Thus, DNA processes data, while templates merely replicate it.

And because this fact is true, Man can turn off various genes WITHOUT removing them from a person's DNA (an amazing achievement, actually).

---

But alas, I hold out absolutely no hope for you to be able to comprehend how DNA works. You've demonstrated a complete and total misunderstanding of DNA in every single one of your posts to date, even after being corrected, so I expect little or no intellectual improvement in your future posts, either. Goodness, I guess you've been "processed" and found wanting...

[captain11]

I agree DNA has inputs (Viral, mutational) I agree DNA has outputs or the express of its structure (animals,plants). DNA does not perform computational functions. DNA is a template just like a crystal.

DNA involves control flow, instructions, and stored state to produce a highly complex output from basic inputs and a complex control program (i.e. the DNA sequences, which constitute software). DNA and its software expressed as sequences constitute a full Turing Machine, capable of arbitrary computation. Actually, DNA is far more capable than a basic Turing machine.

There is strong interest in DNA computation in areas of theoretical computer science because classes NP-complete problems can be solved in polynomial time using DNA.

By your definition, a word-processing program is "just a template" for production of a wide variety of documents stored in a common format, given a sequence of keyboard and mouse inputs. According to your definition, there is no actual computation.

[balrog666]

As I read it, Asimov says that creationism is an idea that has lost out in the scientific arena, yet continues to gather followers from elsewhere in society.

If the proportion of congenital idiots born is invariant, then the the absolute number of such idiots must rise with the increase in the world's population. Of course that increase in total population is totally due to scientific achievements in producing and distributing clean water, healthy food, and medical "miracles" to the world, so maybe it's just payback.

[Southack]

Yes, a complete DNA system does indeed qualify as a Turing Machine.

What is with today's Evolutionists, that they must continuously deny modern science's known facts about DNA?

[Sentis]

Quote "A true template will repeat itself without change. You can stamp out bricks with a brick template, for instance" Not true the brick template will change over time as it wears. DNA does not change itself but is changed by outside forces. The brick template can be changed by outside forces to change it that doesn't mean the brick template processes the information to make itself change natural forces wear on the template changing it.


Quote "But DNA doesn't just repeat itself. DNA isn't blind. DNA actually PROCESSES the Base 2/Base 4 instruction sets that are represented in its mathematically represented sequences of nucleotides"

Now you are merely repeating something I have already debunked. DNA doesn't process it expresses you read the difference didn't you? Someone has given you some faulty information on DNA. What is it processing and why? What is the purpose of this processing. It replicates itself... yes. But replication is not processing. Replication is what any number of natural processes do and I used Crystals as an example of a natural replicating molecule DNA is another example of a natural replicating molecule.


Quote "Likewise, when we are creating new medicines in the lab, we insert EXIT SUB commands into the beginning of particular genetic instruction sets in order to effectively "turn off" entire genes"


Now you are discussing genes not DNA and genes while made up of DNA are a different animal entirely. If you want to move into how genes function we will have to change what we are arguing. Are genes the processing units or is DNA? If this is the case then you should look at a gene as the processing unit and the DNA as the Memory. In this your argument would have more merit but in the end it would be just as flawed. The Gene doesn't know to turn itself off the DNA does so because someone inserted a DNA marker that doesn't allow the gene to function any longer. The same can be done with any molecule which is self replicating (adding a new chemical signature into a crystal will turn off its growth (this is how computer scientists grow crystals for specific applications). This is not processing information this is merely cutting off the machine (in fact any human intervention in this way is actually intelligent design of Humans rather than evidence for a creator). Returning to your brick template if the brick maker were to insert a cap onto the brick template the template would no long be able to make bricks.

Does this mean that the Brick template is processing the fact it has been capped no. The brick template has been acted upon by an outside force changing its function.

Quote "Now, a "template" doesn't know to turn off various portions of itself, but a DNA system DOES INDEED"

The DNA knows nothing it is a complex chemical reaction, it is a complex template but it is not a computer or a processor it could be called an expresser for lack of another term. DNA reaches a portion of it's template that does not allow it to replicate further it is not processing it is merely following the information already present.


Your examples continue to involve humans changing DNA to act as tools that is merely human intervention and creation not a creator God. You should try to argue by finding natural ways DNA acts to change its template rather than trying to argue your point by saying humans do such and such. Example the fact that an man once invented a spear by cutting down a tree does not mean that the tree or the spear are evidence of the creator of the Man.



Your insults are ineffectual and they really make you look like your losing the argument at least to people reading this.

[f.Christian]

Didn't you hear -- kawanza science // fraternity -- evolution !

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I am sure you have been here long enough to know that the typical evolutionist is so vehement with regards to their theory and beliefs that they will do anything to derail a counter argument, or factual information that contradicts them: from personal attacks, to blatant ignorance, to disinformation, there is no bottom to the levels they will descend to.

The fact that you have attempted to continue this debate as long as you have should be commended. Good luck and thanks for the informative posts. Some of us are getting it. :)

FRegards, MM

[Sentis]

Quote "By your definition, a word-processing program is "just a template" ."

Yes it is a template the word processing program is a misnomer it processes nothing as it is merely a template it requires a computer processor to function. It also will not function without outside input nor will the program itself do the processing. Your DNA computers do not process the information they merely store information fed into them by human programmers. It takes human intervention to process this information.

DNA nor crystals need this sort of processor to function as they are not computer programs but merely natural chemical reactions acting in accordance to natural stimuli. If they resemble programs it is because any system that encodes information within itself must to it within the rules of this physical universe. Therefore information must be coded in a uniform way. In DNA information is coded by 4 amino acids in crystals the information is encoded into strings of carbon molecules. You may use DNA as a computational tool but that is not what it is.

[Southack]

"DNA doesn't process it expresses you read the difference didn't you? ... The Gene doesn't know to turn itself off the DNA does so because someone inserted a DNA marker that doesn't allow the gene to function any longer."

Although I seriously doubt that you are capable of seeing your own contradiction above, I will spell it out for the lurkers.

DNA does process instruction sets and data, and it is BECAUSE DNA is processing, rather than merely repeating as would a blind template, that DNA knows to ignore an entire gene when we place a genetic marker (in this case the computer programming equivilent of EXIT SUB) at the beginning of the gene's data.

No, of course the gene per se doesn't know to turn itself off. The gene is merely data (and commands, of course). But the DNA system reads, processes, and acts on the commands and data contained inside the gene, thus when it sees the EXIT SUB genetic marker, it knows to ignore the rest of the data in that subroutine/gene.

And this is ONLY possible because DNA processes data/commands, contrary to your bizarre and borderline Luddite claims above. Such processing simply DOES NOT OCCUR in mere templates!

You really don't get it, even though I've shown you examples that contradict your poor misunderstandinds as well as posted other sources to further illustrate your own contradictions (heck, I've even quoted you contradicting yourself).

So let me guess, you are just going to endlessly post about how you are right but that no one else understands you?!

What a riot!

[Sentis]

Nope I'm not going to endlessly post I am getting tired of your insults. You haven't a clue how DNA or computers work. You are spouting nonsense and continue spouting it even after I have explained why it is wrong a hundred times. You give us alot of techno babble but you haven't explained anything. I have endeavored to make my explanation simple enough that anyone reading can understand them. As such I will state for the record DNA is a self replicating Informational set or template. If you change that template from the outside it will change how it replicates and what it does this is not processing. You ignore that crystals exhibit every trait of computational function you have ascribed to DNA because I can show how crystalline structures arise spontaneously. You merely state Humans can do this or that with DNA to make it function as a computational machine and I have stated making a tool does not make the tool evidence for a God. Humans can also make silicon act as a computational machine does that make the structure of silicon evidence for a creator god?


Unlike you I have a life and need to go away and live it so I can't continue to try to enlighten you as to your short comings. I am sorry you must resort to name calling and personal assaults to make your point but what can I say.

[f.Christian]

Tautology // rants ... are not science !

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: 1rant
Pronunciation: 'rant
Function: verb
Etymology: obsolete Dutch ranten, randen
Date: 1602
intransitive senses
1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
2 : to scold vehemently
transitive senses : to utter in a bombastic declamatory fashion
- rant·er noun
- rant·ing·ly /'ran-ti[ng]-lE/ adverb

[Southack]

"You haven't a clue how DNA or computers work. You are spouting nonsense and continue spouting it even after I have explained why it is wrong a hundred times."

You haven't been correct yet.

You have posted the bizarre claim (above - this thread) that DNA doesn't process information or commands in genetic data.

That's simply wrong.

If what you said was true, then to completely turn off a gene one would have to remove/erase ALL of the genetic code in said gene.

But we don't have to.

We can (and do) leave the entire gene essentially intact, yet we can still turn it off by adding a single genetic instruction at the beginning of the gene in order to instruct the DNA processor to ignore the remaining commands/data in whatever gene we wish to turn off.

Thus, we can completely turn off a gene without erasing it from the DNA system, and this is ONLY POSSIBLE because DNA processes commands/data/information.

There is no other explanation. You are welcome to babble on about how DNA doesn't process anything, but get real, you aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

What I've posted above is logically infallable. You can't touch it. There is simply no way for you to explain how a gene can be turned off without either erasing or deleting it, EXCEPT to say what I've been saying all along, that DNA processes data/commands (including commands that tell the DNA to skip the rest of the gene).

It's a proven Turing Machine (and more), for crying out loud!

Come on man, snap out of your funk! This is science! This is how DNA works!

[Southack]

It's alright. The poor child seems to have fled this thread, no doubt running back to her professor to ask her why all that she's been told about Evolution seems to hinge on having to lie about how DNA works...

[Fester Chugabrew]

". . . the Greeks worked out the Earth was round more than 2000 years ago."

You mean Eratosthenes of Cyrene, that old "fool" who believed in Zeus?

By his won inscription: "Happy art thou, Ptolemy, in that, as a father the equal of his son in youthful vigour, thou hast thyself given him all that is dear to muses and Kings, and may be in the future, O Zeus, god of heaven, also receive the sceptre at thy hands. Thus may it be, and let any one who sees this offering say 'This is the gift of Eratosthenes of Cyrene'."

Man. Anyone who invokes the name of a god must be a real "threat" to science.

[f.Christian]

WARNING: Bad virus -- evolution -- do not open !