Creation >> DNA Code

Nicolas · 03-20-12, 07:33 AM

I was reading this topic. When i try to analyse a thing being objective i try hard to not rely on my personal thoughts or from others that i'm not sure of, and this makes sense to me. Only that.
----------

DNA Code - What is DNA?

The known life forms on planet Earth show a large degree of variation amongst each other. Yet all these varieties of life forms share one common basic construction material. All life forms are either made of cells or are a cell themselves, and all these cells have a nucleus. In this nucleus we find chromosomes, which in turn are made of DNA.

Viruses, by the way, are outside this definition. Viruses consist of genetic material with a shell of protein, but they are not made of one or more cells. It is not even clear yet whether viruses should be considered living creatures.

DNA or Deoxyribonucleic Acid is the carrier of the genetic instructions and of the instructions needed to guide the processes within the cells. DNA is composed of two very long chains of proteins, connected in pairs in a double spiral. Such a spiral can be compared to a zipper: each protein part has its own partner in the opposite chain. The zipper is used during the reproduction process: both the male and the female reproduction cells contain only one half of the DNA chains. At the moment of conception, the male and the female materials are "zipped" together to form a new chain, thus combining the genetic material of both parents. At this point, a new cell is created (a zygote) which now begins to replicate. A new life is developing.

For many years scientists have been working to map the human genome. The quest is focusing on the meaning of the code within the DNA. Every now and then cheers rise up from within the scientific community because a new milestone has been reached. Still there is much more mystery than clarity, and for good reason. We are researching a "language" we do not know and cannot learn this way. All we might achieve is the deciphering of parts of the code in a primitive way.

DNA Code - Computer Language and Memory
In computer languages, certain commands exist with which values in an existing or running computer system can be changed. In older computer systems, for example, the commands Peek and Poke were used: Peek would allow the programmer to "look at" a certain location, while Poke allowed him or her to change something in that location (the word "Poke" here is similar to the use of the word when the embers in a fireplace are poked; the contents are stirred). The syntax for these commands was: Peek “somewhere” and Poke “somewhere; value.”

Even in the early days of the home computer (in the early 80s), the thought of having 65,000 of such locations (or "addresses") available for manipulation was exciting and fascinating. Some addresses defined the color of the screen, while others produced a beep. Assigning a "bad value" to some locations would cause the computer to freeze. Pretty soon it became clear that it was not easy to be productive without a good "directory" of the available addresses: the user guide for the computer. The manufacturer of the computer created the address list and knew where each function resided.

In a general sense, a comparison can be drawn between DNA and the computer memory. Functions are stored in DNA similar to the way functions are stored in computer memory. Both DNA and computer memory have “home addresses” for each function. In many respects such an analogy is deficient, for example because DNA plays a role in the production of cells and because DNA, for "real-time" processing, first has to create copies of certain parts of a chain (RNA) which then are used for the real-time processing itself. Another example is the limited number of addresses (65.000) of the computer in the example, compared to the 220.000.000 gene pairs in the first chromosome of the human DNA alone! That means 3300 times as many addresses! And of course those gene pairs are far more complex and diverse than a memory address in a computer; altogether the base pairs in the human genome contain more than 23 billion DNA base pairs!

DNA Code - Evolution and gradual changes
The theory of evolution states that life forms have changed and improved gradually. These changes must take place in the genetic code, for an improvement of the species must be passed on to the descendants, and must be reproducible to be kept in future generations. In fact, changes in the DNA can only occur through so-called “mutations.” It is definitely not true that physical changes in a “realized body” could flow back into the genetic instruction set. If an animal would accidentally have its tail chopped off, and if this proved to be an advantageous change, this wouldn't mean that some generations later this change would somehow pop up in the genetic material.

What is a mutation? Occasionally errors occur in the DNA chain during the process of copying and reproducing. Suppose somewhere in the chain there is a sequence “DAABE” but after a reproduction, due to such an error, the copy reads “BEEBE.” Such a change could cause a change in the genetic properties of the genetic material.

Properties changed by mutations could theoretically be the basis of an improvement. But how could such an improvement of the design take place? For the sake of clarification, let's return to the example of the computer language. When a programmer writes a piece of software, the written code is made suitable for the computer memory through some processing of this code. Looking at the contents of such a program, it is clear it wouldn't be easy to make "blind" adjustments to the program and actually improve its function. Programmers know that it might be possible to make simple cosmetic changes by using extreme caution, but they are also well aware that it would be impossible to actually add functionality to the program in this manner.

Imagine a computer program is written to perform simple calculations: additions and subtractions. How likely would it be that such a program could be modified, by applying blind or random changes, to enhance its functionality to include divisions or even square roots? Or would it be possible for random mutations to create new functionalities?

DNA Code - Mutations and new functionality
Let's assume a mutation is applied to this calculation program, and let's assume this mutation would be the first of some 120 changes needed to transform our “addition program” into a “find the square root program.” How would the decision be made whether any of the steps taken is a beneficial step? How would it be determined whether any of the steps would lead to a desirable result?

Evolution assumes that improvements lead to improved functionality. A mutation without an immediate useful effect is at least momentarily a useless mutation, that is to be ignored. As mutations occur without a plan or insight, a series of many mutations has to complete before any result can be evaluated in terms of its usefulness. At some point in time, it has to be determined whether or not an attempt to evolve was successful or not and whether or not the situation has to be reverted back to the unchanged original. The process of evolution might take place in this manner, but the odds would be very small. In this extremely simplified example a required sequence of only 120 successful and beneficial steps was assumed. How unlikely would this scenario be if we were to consider the unfathomably complex functional systems in the human body, like the eye or even a single cell? In comparison, a lottery ticket would be a highly secure investment. No programmer following such methodology would ever be able to make a living.

But there's more. If finding a square root would be a completely new function in our calculation program, then mutations could take place without limitations, because the changes would not affect the functioning of the original addition function. If on the other hand we start with the idea of gradual changes to existing functionality, as is done in the theory of evolution, then the risk of damage done by these mutations to the existing functionality increases enormously. The chance that a change would destroy the “addition functionality” is much larger than the change of a mutation that would leave the “addition functionality” intact and at the same time increase its functionality to include a new "find the square root" function.

According to neo-Darwinist views, there is another force at work in the evolution besides mutations. This force is called "natural selection." But these two forces, mutations and natural selection, are colliding forces. A calculation function that returns an incorrect answer is most certainly no weight in the balance for natural selection. Still it is impossible to think of a single mutation that in one step would make a "finding the square root function" available. Therefore the gradual adaptations would have to circumvent natural selection until some useful functionality has evolved, which is almost a contradiction in terms.
DNA Code - Gods Machine Language
"Machine language" is a language optimized for computational performance, not for readability. Computer programmers don’t write their instructions using such machine language. They use a more readable programming language, which is then translated to the machine language by a so-called compiler. The language used by the programmer bears a closer resemblance to normal language, and with the advances in computer technology, these computer languages have become more and more readable. So a compiler is a translation program, which transforms the code designed by the programmer (code that a person can read) into machine code (code that a machine can run).

With this in mind, the analogy between computer programs and DNA can lead to a completely new conclusion: if DNA is the "machine code" for life on earth, then what is the programming language in which that code was originally written?

The analogy is depicted in the following images, from code to result.Let's have a look at computer language first:

And this is the analogy in the case of DNA:

Is it possible that the genetic material in all living creatures could be the machine code of Gods language? According to the Genesis text, God said “Let there be light" and there was light. Genesis 1:24 reads “And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth after his kind': and it was so.”

Through His Word, Gods intention came to its full expression. Like a programmer uses words to create something in a computer, God also used words to bring His creation into being. DNA is the result of Gods Words. It is the way in which His words have been given shape and form. The power of His words is beyond comprehension. To allow the creatures to benefit from the light, He gave them eyes. The addition “after his kind” makes clear that He created variation. The eagle has extreme sharp vision in a very narrow field of sight; the chameleon with its bulb-like eyes is able to move them independently and has a field of sight of 360 degrees. Dogs and cats cannot see colors. Flies receive only a vague image from their compound eyes, but still... it is not easy to catch a fly.

It is obvious that an evolution of all the living systems on earth is out of the question. If evolution had taken place, we would see traces of the millions and millions of "failed paths" of evolution in the fossil record. But God left room for variation within strict boundaries, defined by "the zipper" mentioned earlier. No reproduction is possible between the different species: the zipper will not close, unless brute force is used. An elephant cannot reproduce with a baboon, nor can a fly reproduce with a stork. Cats and dogs won’t reproduce. A horse and a donkey can, but their offspring cannot: the zipper is broken.

How did God materialize His word? In the light of the above analogy the question could be: what is the compiler God used? Is it possible that this was the Holy Spirit, the Power of God?

joegrundman · 03-20-12, 08:02 AM

ooh we haven't had one of these in a while!

you guys are so funny

Skybird · 03-20-12, 08:04 AM

The drive to bring religious claims into scientific concepts as if they would compare to scientific theories, leads nowhere where heart or mind would or should follow. Let believing be believing, and let it be clear that believing is not knowing. Bringing suprantural entities into the formula only confuses things, and adds no enlightenment there.

Blood_splat · 03-20-12, 08:09 AM

Dowly · 03-20-12, 08:11 AM

Wall of text that could be compressed into few words:
"Creationism rules! LALALALA NOT LISTENIIING!!!"

Penguin · 03-20-12, 08:19 AM

The wall of text might find a reader if it would contain original thoughts, not just some copy&paste

So I am not gonna reply to this nonsense, the author has clearly no understanding of neither biology nor IT.

Nicolas · 03-20-12, 08:20 AM

Ok, make joke of me if you want, i consider myself a very open minded person. Also limited because of my language being spanish, you know i never studied english. Anyway you could leave the topic alone a bit if someone want to read it.

03-20-12, 08:20 AM

So sources......Randall Niles "I am not a scientist but I have looked at this and studied it and the best answer is god did it as it is complicated."

Quote:

i consider myself a very open minded person

Fair enough, take one example from the piece and apply an open mind
Flies eyes. what makes a fly swatter more effective at getting flies.
is it ....
(A) if it is in a discreet colour or shape.
(B)something else which is very simple.
If the answer is (B) does that mean the author is talking nonsense and making nonsensical comparisons and reaching nonsensical conclusions.

Nicolas · 03-20-12, 08:21 AM

IT, I'm a programmer.

Oberon · 03-20-12, 08:23 AM

In other news, NOMEX shares rose today due to excessive demand for their products...

Sammi79 · 03-20-12, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

The drive to bring religious claims into scientific concepts as if they would compare to scientific theories, leads nowhere where heart or mind would or should follow. Let believing be believing, and let it be clear that believing is not knowing. Bringing suprantural entities into the formula only confuses things, and adds no enlightenment there.

Exactly this.

The OPs questions are loaded, to answer requires acceptance of the premise, which is a rather obvious logical fallacy.

Keep studying evolution, Nicolas. The misleading simplification of its mechanisms in your post will become apparent. May I recommend to you 'The Ancestors Tale' by Richard Dawkins. A lot of your misconceptions are explained in detail there. In regard to machine language, get a Z80 based micro emulator with an assembler and start with the Zilog Z80 manual, but beware this is a very heavy book.

btw, your english is very good.

but these are not your words I think hmmm?

Regards, Sam.

joegrundman · 03-20-12, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So sources......Randall Niles "I am not a scientist but I have looked at this and studied it and the best answer is god did it as it is complicated."

it's from

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/

Dowly · 03-20-12, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sammi79

May I recommend to you 'The Ancestors Tale' by Richard Dawkins.

@Nicolas

Don't think anyone has anything against you, it's just that we've had many come
before you and have done the same thing as you: Copy & paste something completely silly
and add that they are "open minded".

Now, being open minded is good, but most (not necessarely you), when they
say they are open minded when posting something like this actually means
that they believe it, usually without really looking into the subject other than
1 article which they then copy & pasted here.

03-20-12, 08:47 AM

Quote:

it's from

I know, where do you think I got "Randall Niles" from and a summation of his "I am not a scientist but....." arguement on the origins of the universe?

Nicolas · 03-20-12, 10:08 AM

They have gone too far to be a theory IMHO, why keep adding things if they do not materalized something yet. I ask, when scientists discover specific working things i marvel myself and wow what they discovered! i open my eyes and in wonder eat all they say, where is the juicy stuff here??

03-20-12, 07:33 AM	#1
Nicolas Commander Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Uruguay Posts: 453 Downloads: 196 Uploads: 4	Creation >> DNA Code I was reading this topic. When i try to analyse a thing being objective i try hard to not rely on my personal thoughts or from others that i'm not sure of, and this makes sense to me. Only that. ---------- DNA Code - What is DNA? The known life forms on planet Earth show a large degree of variation amongst each other. Yet all these varieties of life forms share one common basic construction material. All life forms are either made of cells or are a cell themselves, and all these cells have a nucleus. In this nucleus we find chromosomes, which in turn are made of DNA. Viruses, by the way, are outside this definition. Viruses consist of genetic material with a shell of protein, but they are not made of one or more cells. It is not even clear yet whether viruses should be considered living creatures. DNA or Deoxyribonucleic Acid is the carrier of the genetic instructions and of the instructions needed to guide the processes within the cells. DNA is composed of two very long chains of proteins, connected in pairs in a double spiral. Such a spiral can be compared to a zipper: each protein part has its own partner in the opposite chain. The zipper is used during the reproduction process: both the male and the female reproduction cells contain only one half of the DNA chains. At the moment of conception, the male and the female materials are "zipped" together to form a new chain, thus combining the genetic material of both parents. At this point, a new cell is created (a zygote) which now begins to replicate. A new life is developing. For many years scientists have been working to map the human genome. The quest is focusing on the meaning of the code within the DNA. Every now and then cheers rise up from within the scientific community because a new milestone has been reached. Still there is much more mystery than clarity, and for good reason. We are researching a "language" we do not know and cannot learn this way. All we might achieve is the deciphering of parts of the code in a primitive way. DNA Code - Computer Language and Memory In computer languages, certain commands exist with which values in an existing or running computer system can be changed. In older computer systems, for example, the commands Peek and Poke were used: Peek would allow the programmer to "look at" a certain location, while Poke allowed him or her to change something in that location (the word "Poke" here is similar to the use of the word when the embers in a fireplace are poked; the contents are stirred). The syntax for these commands was: Peek “somewhere” and Poke “somewhere; value.” Even in the early days of the home computer (in the early 80s), the thought of having 65,000 of such locations (or "addresses") available for manipulation was exciting and fascinating. Some addresses defined the color of the screen, while others produced a beep. Assigning a "bad value" to some locations would cause the computer to freeze. Pretty soon it became clear that it was not easy to be productive without a good "directory" of the available addresses: the user guide for the computer. The manufacturer of the computer created the address list and knew where each function resided. In a general sense, a comparison can be drawn between DNA and the computer memory. Functions are stored in DNA similar to the way functions are stored in computer memory. Both DNA and computer memory have “home addresses” for each function. In many respects such an analogy is deficient, for example because DNA plays a role in the production of cells and because DNA, for "real-time" processing, first has to create copies of certain parts of a chain (RNA) which then are used for the real-time processing itself. Another example is the limited number of addresses (65.000) of the computer in the example, compared to the 220.000.000 gene pairs in the first chromosome of the human DNA alone! That means 3300 times as many addresses! And of course those gene pairs are far more complex and diverse than a memory address in a computer; altogether the base pairs in the human genome contain more than 23 billion DNA base pairs! DNA Code - Evolution and gradual changes The theory of evolution states that life forms have changed and improved gradually. These changes must take place in the genetic code, for an improvement of the species must be passed on to the descendants, and must be reproducible to be kept in future generations. In fact, changes in the DNA can only occur through so-called “mutations.” It is definitely not true that physical changes in a “realized body” could flow back into the genetic instruction set. If an animal would accidentally have its tail chopped off, and if this proved to be an advantageous change, this wouldn't mean that some generations later this change would somehow pop up in the genetic material. What is a mutation? Occasionally errors occur in the DNA chain during the process of copying and reproducing. Suppose somewhere in the chain there is a sequence “DAABE” but after a reproduction, due to such an error, the copy reads “BEEBE.” Such a change could cause a change in the genetic properties of the genetic material. Properties changed by mutations could theoretically be the basis of an improvement. But how could such an improvement of the design take place? For the sake of clarification, let's return to the example of the computer language. When a programmer writes a piece of software, the written code is made suitable for the computer memory through some processing of this code. Looking at the contents of such a program, it is clear it wouldn't be easy to make "blind" adjustments to the program and actually improve its function. Programmers know that it might be possible to make simple cosmetic changes by using extreme caution, but they are also well aware that it would be impossible to actually add functionality to the program in this manner. Imagine a computer program is written to perform simple calculations: additions and subtractions. How likely would it be that such a program could be modified, by applying blind or random changes, to enhance its functionality to include divisions or even square roots? Or would it be possible for random mutations to create new functionalities? DNA Code - Mutations and new functionality Let's assume a mutation is applied to this calculation program, and let's assume this mutation would be the first of some 120 changes needed to transform our “addition program” into a “find the square root program.” How would the decision be made whether any of the steps taken is a beneficial step? How would it be determined whether any of the steps would lead to a desirable result? Evolution assumes that improvements lead to improved functionality. A mutation without an immediate useful effect is at least momentarily a useless mutation, that is to be ignored. As mutations occur without a plan or insight, a series of many mutations has to complete before any result can be evaluated in terms of its usefulness. At some point in time, it has to be determined whether or not an attempt to evolve was successful or not and whether or not the situation has to be reverted back to the unchanged original. The process of evolution might take place in this manner, but the odds would be very small. In this extremely simplified example a required sequence of only 120 successful and beneficial steps was assumed. How unlikely would this scenario be if we were to consider the unfathomably complex functional systems in the human body, like the eye or even a single cell? In comparison, a lottery ticket would be a highly secure investment. No programmer following such methodology would ever be able to make a living. But there's more. If finding a square root would be a completely new function in our calculation program, then mutations could take place without limitations, because the changes would not affect the functioning of the original addition function. If on the other hand we start with the idea of gradual changes to existing functionality, as is done in the theory of evolution, then the risk of damage done by these mutations to the existing functionality increases enormously. The chance that a change would destroy the “addition functionality” is much larger than the change of a mutation that would leave the “addition functionality” intact and at the same time increase its functionality to include a new "find the square root" function. According to neo-Darwinist views, there is another force at work in the evolution besides mutations. This force is called "natural selection." But these two forces, mutations and natural selection, are colliding forces. A calculation function that returns an incorrect answer is most certainly no weight in the balance for natural selection. Still it is impossible to think of a single mutation that in one step would make a "finding the square root function" available. Therefore the gradual adaptations would have to circumvent natural selection until some useful functionality has evolved, which is almost a contradiction in terms. DNA Code - Gods Machine Language "Machine language" is a language optimized for computational performance, not for readability. Computer programmers don’t write their instructions using such machine language. They use a more readable programming language, which is then translated to the machine language by a so-called compiler. The language used by the programmer bears a closer resemblance to normal language, and with the advances in computer technology, these computer languages have become more and more readable. So a compiler is a translation program, which transforms the code designed by the programmer (code that a person can read) into machine code (code that a machine can run). With this in mind, the analogy between computer programs and DNA can lead to a completely new conclusion: if DNA is the "machine code" for life on earth, then what is the programming language in which that code was originally written? The analogy is depicted in the following images, from code to result.Let's have a look at computer language first: And this is the analogy in the case of DNA: Is it possible that the genetic material in all living creatures could be the machine code of Gods language? According to the Genesis text, God said “Let there be light" and there was light. Genesis 1:24 reads “And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth after his kind': and it was so.” Through His Word, Gods intention came to its full expression. Like a programmer uses words to create something in a computer, God also used words to bring His creation into being. DNA is the result of Gods Words. It is the way in which His words have been given shape and form. The power of His words is beyond comprehension. To allow the creatures to benefit from the light, He gave them eyes. The addition “after his kind” makes clear that He created variation. The eagle has extreme sharp vision in a very narrow field of sight; the chameleon with its bulb-like eyes is able to move them independently and has a field of sight of 360 degrees. Dogs and cats cannot see colors. Flies receive only a vague image from their compound eyes, but still... it is not easy to catch a fly. It is obvious that an evolution of all the living systems on earth is out of the question. If evolution had taken place, we would see traces of the millions and millions of "failed paths" of evolution in the fossil record. But God left room for variation within strict boundaries, defined by "the zipper" mentioned earlier. No reproduction is possible between the different species: the zipper will not close, unless brute force is used. An elephant cannot reproduce with a baboon, nor can a fly reproduce with a stork. Cats and dogs won’t reproduce. A horse and a donkey can, but their offspring cannot: the zipper is broken. How did God materialize His word? In the light of the above analogy the question could be: what is the compiler God used? Is it possible that this was the Holy Spirit, the Power of God?

03-20-12, 08:02 AM	#2
joegrundman Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,689 Downloads: 34 Uploads: 0	ooh we haven't had one of these in a while! you guys are so funny __________________ "Enemy submarines are to be called U-Boats. The term submarine is to be reserved for Allied under water vessels. U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs." Winston Churchill

03-20-12, 08:04 AM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,616 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The drive to bring religious claims into scientific concepts as if they would compare to scientific theories, leads nowhere where heart or mind would or should follow. Let believing be believing, and let it be clear that believing is not knowing. Bringing suprantural entities into the formula only confuses things, and adds no enlightenment there. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-20-12, 08:09 AM	#4
Blood_splat Samurai Navy Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Beneath the waves Posts: 568 Downloads: 20 Uploads: 0

03-20-12, 08:11 AM	#5
Dowly Lucky Jack Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 25,052 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	Wall of text that could be compressed into few words: "Creationism rules! LALALALA NOT LISTENIIING!!!"

03-20-12, 08:19 AM	#6
Penguin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Rheinische Republik Posts: 3,322 Downloads: 92 Uploads: 0	The wall of text might find a reader if it would contain original thoughts, not just some copy&paste So I am not gonna reply to this nonsense, the author has clearly no understanding of neither biology nor IT.

03-20-12, 08:20 AM	#7
Nicolas Commander Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Uruguay Posts: 453 Downloads: 196 Uploads: 4	Ok, make joke of me if you want, i consider myself a very open minded person. Also limited because of my language being spanish, you know i never studied english. Anyway you could leave the topic alone a bit if someone want to read it.

03-20-12, 08:21 AM	#9
Nicolas Commander Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Uruguay Posts: 453 Downloads: 196 Uploads: 4	IT, I'm a programmer.

03-20-12, 08:23 AM	#10
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	In other news, NOMEX shares rose today due to excessive demand for their products...

03-20-12, 10:08 AM	#15
Nicolas Commander Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Uruguay Posts: 453 Downloads: 196 Uploads: 4	They have gone too far to be a theory IMHO, why keep adding things if they do not materalized something yet. I ask, when scientists discover specific working things i marvel myself and wow what they discovered! i open my eyes and in wonder eat all they say, where is the juicy stuff here??