The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[f.Christian]

"WAKE UP!!!"

Brain sleep // dreams - - - a full blown psychotic (( all hate --- DENIAL // no reality )) !

TYPICAL EVO - - - poison apple ==== evolution !

[tortoise]

Kolmogorov did some very important foundational work, primarily in that he fixed one of the key deficiencies in Shannon's work. That said, while the foundations he laid are as valid as they ever were, the field has advanced substantially beyond where he left it. Algorithmic Information Theory, which is essentially the proper descendent of Kolmogorov's mathematics, has started to yield some very important developments regarding computational information theory in general. One could very much argue that it is the most important direction currently being explored in computer theory, and is solving some long outstanding questions in the field. In theoretical computer science, this is one of the areas that is really starting to get hot. It is increasingly clear that it is far more important than a lot of people initially thought it was. Such is the history of discovery.

AIT is essentially my area of expertise in mathematics, particularly as it applies to computational theory. My particular sub-specialty is this field of mathematics as applied to finite systems. Virtually all mathematics dealing with computational theory does NOT assume finite systems, which is a bit odd since all practical computers ARE finite systems.

[tortoise]

Hmmm... but the DNA system has both digital and analog components. (Ex.: the genes' sequences and the amounts which they get expressed.) Can analog components be part of Turing machines too?

Arrrgh... There is no mathematical distinction between "analog" and "digital" systems. These are information encoding formats i.e. an artifact of human engineering, not fundamental truths of some sort. Therefore, they can be treated the same. The only conditions under which analog systems are mathematically different than digital systems are when you have no noise floor (i.e. infinite SNR) -- not in THIS universe. And in the same universe, you could have infinite-bit digital encoding anyway, so it would be a wash. This analog-versus-digital false dichotomy is one of those Myths That Won't Die, and it drives me mad.

As a result, yes, analog encoded information can be part of a Turing machine without any consequences.

The rough rule of thumb for converting the dynamic range of an analog signal into the equivalent number of required digital bits for information theoretical purposes, is that you take the dynamic range of the analog signal and divide it by 6. There is a proper mathematical conversion, but this gets you close enough for government work. In living organisms, the effective dynamic range of the system probably isn't more than 40-60dB, which gives you a whopping 10 bits of information tops. An actual mathematical analysis is substantially more complicated than this, but you get the idea. 6-10 bits is pretty sad; the complexity is that there are a LOT of components in the system with this much information content and it adds up damn quick.

[jennyp]

This analog-versus-digital false dichotomy is one of those Myths That Won't Die, and it drives me mad.

mmmmm... I dunno. I don't buy it. It doesn't seem right to me. You're wrong. :-)

[PatrickHenry]

What kind of wisdom would send adherents to a "joke" into outer space on taxpayer funds?

If I could figure out what you're trying to say, and how it relates to the theory of evolution, I would respond.

[f.Christian]

WARNING: Bad virus (( apple )) -- evolution -- do not open (( bite // eat )) !

[balrog666]

Once again you didn't address my point. For example, look at DeathFromBelow's posts on this very thread.

The problem is you are too busy looking and studying the wrong things.

What is his solution to the "evil" science of the theory of evolution - STOP STUDYING IT. Don't try to prove it wrong, don't replace it with something better, just make it go away. Oh, please, Mr. Scientist, make it go away!!!

Now, is his attitude any different than Anti-Pope GoreMMM's? Or Phaedrus's I'm-always-right-so-shut-up-and-go-away style? Or f.Christian's bizarre babbling and non-sequitur cut-and-paste reposts? Or any of the post-some-scripture-and-then-run-away Freepers that pop in from time to time? As, Patrick Henry pointed out, these "Creationists" are the rule not the exception.

[unspun]

What is his solution to the "evil" science of the theory of evolution - STOP STUDYING IT. Don't try to prove it wrong, don't replace it with something better, just make it go away. Oh, please, Mr. Scientist, make it go away!!!

Creationists don't need to prove evolution wrong. It is evolution-from-nothing believers who seem to need to prove God wrong, or at least illegal.

[unspun]

oops "< /i >"

[Fester Chugabrew]

"If I could figure out what you're trying to say, and how it relates to the theory of evolution, I would respond."

I'm trying to say creationism is not a threat to science. If it were, then we should not be sending those who adhere to creationist ideas into outer space lest they be tempted to dilute "pure" science on account of their creationist predilections.

Asimov:

"With creationism in the saddle, American science will wither. We will raise a generation of ignoramuses ill-equipped to run the industry of tomorrow, much less to generate the new advances of the days after tomorrow."

That's not only a joke, but a downright thankless insult to those creationists upon whose shoulder's the better number of scientists stand.

[balrog666]

Creationists don't need to prove evolution wrong.

Tell that to the other Creationists.

It is evolution-from-nothing believers who seem to need to prove God wrong, or at least illegal.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Certainly there are evolutionists here who believe in (various versions of) God and nobody is trying to make them change their minds.

[unspun]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Certainly there are evolutionists here who believe in (various versions of) God and nobody is trying to make them change their minds.

Is that Mr. Asimov's and Mr. Patrick (incongruous monicker) Henry's position, by their statements? They seem to be part and parcel with those who would ban the conveyance of Creationism education from public schools, which is to say "only spontaneous life generation theories allowed, in our science class." (Hardly a matter for science.)

Am I wrong in that impression?

[Sentis]

I hate to do this as it may help the creationists a bit at least it will make their argument more specific.

But not one of you know how DNA functions. You may know computers but you don't know DNA. DNA has no function other than a store house of information. DNA does nothing else. RNA and MRNA do all the work. RNA travels along the DNA reading the code it then copies a section which is taken to the ribosome. In the ribosome the copied section of DNA is processed three bases at a time this is called the base triplet. Transfer RNA picks up these base triplets these transfer RNA string out into clusters called proteins These proteins tell the body how to grow. (Color of eyes, height, etc).


DNA by itself is a template nothing else it does nothing else. RNA is not DNA, neither is MRNA, and neither are proteins. I have stated all along that you cannot look at DNA as a separate entity it is a small part of a system a very large system. It is merely a store house of information or may I say again a template. It is not a processor. The cell itself may be seen as a processor but DNA does not process information.


If you want to argue if other parts of a cell are processors that is a differnet argument and I will use different tactics but DNA is not a processor or a computer or a turing machine. If DNA is a Turning machine instructions for putting together a stereo is a turing machine. IF stereo instructions count as a turing machine then I am mistaken about what a Turing machine is.

[Right Wing Professor]

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.

This, I'm afraid, is nonsense. The information in DNA is replicated by a system of enzymes centered around DNA polymerases, and transcribed to RNA by another system of enzymes interacting with the RNA polymerases. DNA does not transcribe itself. It contains start and stop signals for transcription, but these are read by enzymes, not by DNA.

You appear to think DNA is a Turing machine. It isn't.

[Southack]

"This, I'm afraid, is nonsense. The information in DNA is replicated by a system of enzymes centered around DNA polymerases, and transcribed to RNA by another system of enzymes interacting with the RNA polymerases. DNA does not transcribe itself. It contains start and stop signals for transcription, but these are read by enzymes, not by DNA. You appear to think DNA is a Turing machine. It isn't."

You've managed to read my shorthand in some posts (my fault, sorry) and draw a useless conclusion (e.g. that DNA doesn't process data/commands and that DNA isn't a Turing machine).

However, if you are actually intellectually honest (and at this point, I have no reason to doubt that fact) and you read ALL of my posts on this thread, you will see that what I am actually saying (when I'm not being lazy-enough to use shorthand) is that the DNA system (not simply DNA per se) is doing the processing of the data/commands stored in DNA.

And once you understand that I am referring to the entire cell, then you can draw an accurate conclusion (rather than the useless one that you referred to above); namely that the DNA system does indeed process data and commands, and that this DNA system is indeed a Turing Machine.

[Southack]

"If you want to argue if other parts of a cell are processors that is a differnet argument and I will use different tactics but DNA is not a processor or a computer or a turing machine. If DNA is a Turning machine instructions for putting together a stereo is a turing machine. IF stereo instructions count as a turing machine then I am mistaken about what a Turing machine is."

What's this?! Dare I believe my own eyes??

Is Sentis finally admitting that DNA contains ... dramatic pause ... PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTIONS?!

Good Lord, we have ourselves an Intellectual Breakthrough by one of our Darwinists!

Why at this rate, you'll soon be comprehending that we've been discussing the DNA system, not simply DNA per se, all along.

And good grief, once you reach that conclusion, the sky is the limit for you!

You might even "get" what we've been saying, and why, all along!

(well, I can dream, can't I)

[Right Wing Professor]

Thanks for the clarification.

The cell isn't a Turing machine either, in that there is no 'write' function. If you regard DNA as the tape; it's read, but it's certainly not written. The essence of a Turing machine, as I understand it, is that bits are read and written sequentially. The cell reads many DNA sequences in parallel.

That being said, DNA is my area of expertise, not computer science; I look a grad. course in machines languages and computation 20 years ago, but since then my knowledge of the subject is at a Sci. Am. level.

[balrog666]

Is that Mr. Asimov's and Mr. Patrick (incongruous monicker) Henry's position, by their statements?

Ask them. But be specific.

They seem to be part and parcel with those who would ban the conveyance of Creationism education from public schools,

So am I. It's not science and doesn't belong in a science class.

... which is to say "only spontaneous life generation theories allowed, in our science class." (Hardly a matter for science.)

While it is NOT part of the Theory of Evolution, it is a current scientific hypothesis and research is being done on it. Have you got a alternative scientific hypothesis to propose?

[Southack]

"The cell isn't a Turing machine either, in that there is no 'write' function. If you regard DNA as the tape; it's read, but it's certainly not written."

How can one copy DNA without doing any "writing"?!

Are you saying that cells don't replicate DNA?

[Southack]

CELL REPLICATION
6/11/01
Ann Bradford

Cell Replication

One cell divides into two daughter cells

Homologous chromosomes: one from mother, one from father. Humans have 23 of these pairs of chromosomes (46 total chromosomes).

Only certain cells in plants – meristems – actively dividing

Cell Replication Steps:1. Growth (cell creates more mitochondria, more ribosomes, etc.)
2. Replicate DNA (makes a copy of each chromosome in cell)
3. Distribute the DNA (Mitosis)
4. Cell Division (Cytokinesis)