Epigenetic Inheritance in Humans

[Audie]

the math which proves the negative? prove it can't be done or it's true by default?!

I would appreciate it if you showed me the mathematical algorithm which actually successfully solves the problems & models the theory, we can do this for things like photosynthesis, nuclear fission, gravitational redshift, but not for things like astrology, global warming or Darwinian evolution, why not?

Nobody has exact figures on the rates of beneficial v deleterious random mutations, we just know that deleterious ones would (if entirely random) vastly exceed beneficial ones.

As Dawkins noted, evolution/genetics has largely become a branch of information technology "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal"

Apart from differences in jarg, this is all an
excuse for "cant do it".

(Polymath257 said: ↑
Please show the relevant math for this conclusion.)

 

[Jumi]

As Dawkins noted, evolution/genetics has largely become a branch of information technology "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal"

He really said that? Kind of hard to agree with him there. I'm not sure how much he knows of computers based on that?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

He really said that? Kind of hard to agree with him there. I'm not sure how much he knows of computers based on that?

Yes, and he repeats and expands on this many times

I agree with him, and this guy also:

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”: Bill Gates

You may know more about DNA and computers than both of them put together though?!

 

[Jumi]

Yes, and he repeats and expands on this many times

I agree with him, and this guy also:

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”: Bill Gates

You may know more about DNA and computers than both of them put together though?!

I have worked with both DNA and computers, though not an expert. Despite the existence of these people you see as authorities, I don't see any reason to put either on a pedestal, I'd rather see some rather good examples of how they make the comparison and if it's convincing. It's especially strange that you'd use Dawkins to make a case since as far as I remember talking to you, you've brought him up in a dismissive sense before.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have worked with both DNA and computers, though not an expert. Despite the existence of these people you see as authorities, I don't see any reason to put either on a pedestal, I'd rather see some rather good examples of how they make the comparison and if it's convincing. It's especially strange that you'd use Dawkins to make a case since as far as I remember talking to you, you've brought him up in a dismissive sense before.

Point being; that as much as Dawkins openly and passionately abhors the concept of ID, even he cannot dismiss the comparison between DNA and intelligently designed software.

i.e. it's not just 'those crazy religious people' who observe the similarities

 

[Jumi]

Point being; that as much as Dawkins openly and passionately abhors the concept of ID, even he cannot dismiss the comparison between DNA and intelligently designed software.

He compared it to machine code in your quote, not an application or "intelligently designed software" as you put it which is quite different. I'd bet he would put it on the level of a certain block of DNA producing a certain protein. So you are taking his words into another direction based on that quote. The Gates attributed quote seems on similar lines to your thinking at first look and quite different from Dawkins' quote in my opinion.

i.e. it's not just 'those crazy religious people' who observe the similarities

I don't say it's crazy to see similarities. Scientists, mathematicians, engineers etc see patterns all the time and put them into formulae.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

He compared it to machine code in your quote, not an application or "intelligently designed software" as you put it which is quite different. I'd bet he would put it on the level of a certain block of DNA producing a certain protein. So you are taking his words into another direction based on that quote. The Gates attributed quote seems on similar lines to your thinking at first look and quite different from Dawkins' quote in my opinion.


I don't say it's crazy to see similarities. Scientists, mathematicians, engineers etc see patterns all the time and put them into formulae.

Here's the larger quote if you think I'm taking it out of context- I'm just adding the bold to highlight my original point.

"
After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . . .

Our genetic system, which is the universal system of all life on the planet, is digital to the core. With word-for-word accuracy, you could encode the whole of the New Testament in those parts of the human genome that are at present filled with “junk” DNA – that is, DNA not used, at least in the ordinary way, by the body. Every cell in your body contains the equivalent of forty-six immense data tapes, reeling off digital characters via numerous reading heads working simultaneously. In every cell, these tapes – the chromosomes – contain the same information, but the reading heads in different kinds of cells seek out different parts of the database for their own specialist purposes. . . .

Genes are pure information – information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do."


Whether you want to use the word software, application, program- it's a semantic argument, but the substance remains, we are talking about a digital information system.

There is only one scientifically verifiable means by which such systems are originated. not to say a spontaneous one is impossible, it's just not verifiable as ID is (far less representing a 'default' explanation!)

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

the math which proves the negative? prove it can't be done or it's true by default?!

So when you claim that something is improbable you are just making it up?

I would appreciate it if you showed me the mathematical algorithm which actually successfully solves the problems & models the theory, we can do this for things like photosynthesis, nuclear fission, gravitational redshift, but not for things like astrology, global warming or Darwinian evolution, why not?

I don't know how anyone could write those algorithms because we would need the genomes of those common ancestors and early ancestors, which we don't have. We would also need to know every epistatic interaction for every single mutation in every single genome, which is nearly unknowable. This is why I know you are making stuff up when you claim that evolution is improbable because the math can't be done.

Nobody has exact figures on the rates of beneficial v deleterious random mutations, we just know that deleterious ones would (if entirely random) vastly exceed beneficial ones.

That's not a problem because deleterious mutations are selected out of a population while beneficial ones increase in number through selection.

Also, if you don't know the beneficial mutation rate, then how can you say that random mutations are insufficient for producing them? Are you making that up?

As Dawkins noted, evolution/genetics has largely become a branch of information technology "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal"

Yes, nature writes computer code. Pretty cool, eh?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So when you claim that something is improbable you are just making it up?

when something cannot be observed, replicated, tested, demonstrated or even simulated, I do not accept it as 'undeniable fact'

I don't know how anyone could write those algorithms because we would need the genomes of those common ancestors and early ancestors, which we don't have. We would also need to know every epistatic interaction for every single mutation in every single genome, which is nearly unknowable. This is why I know you are making stuff up when you claim that evolution is improbable because the math can't be done.

exactly, I can't give you the mathematical probability of a blindfolded chimp typing an interesting novel, I just know it ain't good.

If you grant common ancestors with all the necessary digital info pre-installed to predetermine human beings, then you grant the chimp a completed manuscript to simply hand over, you haven't made the case for the essential information originating through random errors any stronger

That's not a problem because deleterious mutations are selected out of a population while beneficial ones increase in number through selection.

Also, if you don't know the beneficial mutation rate, then how can you say that random mutations are insufficient for producing them? Are you making that up?

As above, we know that purely random errors are vastly more likely to be deleterious to design information than beneficial. If changes in biology contradict this, they also contradict those changes being random.. Just as a die that usually rolls a 6, demonstrates that the die is loaded, not that 'random rolls usually naturally produce a 6'

Yes, nature writes computer code. Pretty cool, eh?

and computer code can write computer code- what is the origin of this?

we know intelligent agents can originate such information systems, your belief in a purely natural originator has never been observed, tested, verified- so it is the more extraordinary claim. But who knows? reality is full of surprises!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

when something cannot be observed, replicated, tested, demonstrated or even simulated, I do not accept it as 'undeniable fact'

These are repeatedly observable, testable, and demonstrable:

Exactly, I can't give you the mathematical probability of a blindfolded chimp typing an interesting novel, I just know it ain't good.

DNA isn't an interesting novel, so I don't see how that applies. Here is a protein sequence (cytochrome c), and it looks a lot like something a chimp would type:

MGDVEKGKKI FIMKCSQCHT VEKGGKHKTG PNLHGLFGRK TGQAPGYSYT
AANKNKGIIW GEDTLMEYLE NPKKYIPGTK MIFVGIKKKE ERADLIAYLK

If you grant common ancestors with all the necessary digital info pre-installed to predetermine human beings, then you grant the chimp a completed manuscript to simply hand over, you haven't made the case for the essential information originating through random errors any stronger

Why would it need to be pre-installed?

As above, we know that purely random errors are vastly more likely to be deleterious to design information than beneficial. If changes in biology contradict this, they also contradict those changes being random.. Just as a die that usually rolls a 6, demonstrates that the die is loaded, not that 'random rolls usually naturally produce a 6'

You are forgetting about selection.

and computer code can write computer code- what is the origin of this?

The origin of this is chemistry.

we know intelligent agents can originate such information systems, your belief in a purely natural originator has never been observed, tested, verified- so it is the more extraordinary claim. But who knows? reality is full of surprises!

We know that intelligent agents can make ice. That doesn't mean that an iceberg was intelligently designed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

These are repeatedly observable, testable, and demonstrable:

repeatedly observed accidentally morphing from one to another?

DNA isn't an interesting novel, so I don't see how that applies. Here is a protein sequence (cytochrome c), and it looks a lot like something a chimp would type:

MGDVEKGKKI FIMKCSQCHT VEKGGKHKTG PNLHGLFGRK TGQAPGYSYT
AANKNKGIIW GEDTLMEYLE NPKKYIPGTK MIFVGIKKKE ERADLIAYLK

And 'War and Peace' downloaded on kindle looks something like this
111010010001010011101011001110101101001011011011100111010110001101
101010110101001110101011010110110111101010110111010101010101001101


Except War and Peace is selling a human being a little short!

so we are dealing with software code in both cases right?, and a hardware system which reads and copies it- remind me again of the only scientifically verifiable means by which such systems can be originated?

Why would it need to be pre-installed?

Why did the universal constants need to be pre-installed? a handful of simple laws+ lots of time and space gives you a lot of nothing forever

You are forgetting about selection.

selection of what?

We know that intelligent agents can make ice. That doesn't mean that an iceberg was intelligently designed.

Well there you go, we DO know of a natural mechanism for creating ice- which is why we both agree they can be made both ways.-

Not so for digital information systems, we only know of one way

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

repeatedly observed accidentally morphing from one to another?

Like I said, you refuse to accept the evidence. Why ask for evidence if you just run from it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Like I said, you refuse to accept the evidence. Why ask for evidence if you just run from it?

I accept the all evidence, and draw a different conclusion from it

We can directly test, observe, repeat selective breeding in dogs. That's empirical evidence for genetic inheritance (with creative intelligence guiding in this case)

We cannot do the same for a single cell becoming a human being, without guidance and through copying mistakes in DNA
Surely you can appreciate the difference in the level of 'evidence' for each? Darwinian evolution is inherently a speculative reconstruction of past events- or as I've asked several times before:

What do you consider the best example of macro evolution, directly observed, tested, documented, as we might do for a new dog breed?

(sorry if I missed a specific answer to this, I didn't see one)

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I accept the all evidence, and draw a different conclusion from it

There is no evidence that you would ever accept for evolution because you won't allow yourself to reach that conclusion.

We can directly test, observe, repeat selective breeding in dogs. That's empirical evidence for genetic inheritance (with creative intelligence guiding in this case)

We cannot do the same for a single cell becoming a human being, without guidance and through copying mistakes in DNA
Surely you can appreciate the difference in the level of 'evidence' for each?

Does a jury have to see a reanimated corpse be killed by a defendant before they can accept forensic evidence? Are you really saying that directly witnessing a crime is the only possible evidence?

What do you consider the best example of macro evolution, directly observed, tested, documented, as we might do for a new dog breed?

Here are 29 tests for macroevolution:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Pick any one of them and I will discuss it in a new thread.

 

[Jumi]

Here's the larger quote if you think I'm taking it out of context- I'm just adding the bold to highlight my original point.

I'm not thinking you are taking it out of context, but thanks for providing some.

After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . . .

Well there's some weird comparisons there to say the least. Seems more philosophical than a practical comparison with a variety of things thrown in. Still unconvinced.

Our genetic system, which is the universal system of all life on the planet, is digital to the core. With word-for-word accuracy, you could encode the whole of the New Testament in those parts of the human genome that are at present filled with “junk” DNA – that is, DNA not used, at least in the ordinary way, by the body. Every cell in your body contains the equivalent of forty-six immense data tapes, reeling off digital characters via numerous reading heads working simultaneously. In every cell, these tapes – the chromosomes – contain the same information, but the reading heads in different kinds of cells seek out different parts of the database for their own specialist purposes. . . .

So is it like a processor or like a database or like software. You can't have all of those in one and say they're the same deal.

Genes are pure information – information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning. Pure information can be copied and, since it is digital information, the fidelity of the copying can be immense. DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do.

"

Degradation happens as far as I know. And now he's moving to say it's pure information which is quite unlike computers.

Whether you want to use the word software, application, program- it's a semantic argument, but the substance remains, we are talking about a digital information system.

Not really. It's like saying whether it's God, a Book or Printing Press are the same.

There is only one scientifically verifiable means by which such systems are originated. not to say a spontaneous one is impossible, it's just not verifiable as ID is (far less representing a 'default' explanation!)

Oh, what sort of experiment can you do to verify this "only one means" you can think of? Or is it just the only one that you are willing to consider...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not thinking you are taking it out of context, but thanks for providing some.


Well there's some weird comparisons there to say the least. Seems more philosophical than a practical comparison with a variety of things thrown in. Still unconvinced.


So is it like a processor or like a database or like software. You can't have all of those in one and say they're the same deal.


Degradation happens as far as I know. And now he's moving to say it's pure information which is quite unlike computers.


Not really. It's like saying whether it's God, a Book or Printing Press are the same.


Oh, what sort of experiment can you do to verify this "only one means" you can think of? Or is it just the only one that you are willing to consider...

You are using proof of it right now, an intelligently designed digital information system- not to say one cannot also be created spontaneously, but this cannot be verified and is certainly arguably, mathematically problematic.

For the record I was brought up atheist, argued strongly for Darwinian evolution for many decades, but there is something very humbling about arguing with a computer!

 

[Jumi]

Learned about this from another discussion here:

DNA Not The Same In Every Cell Of Body: Major Genetic Differences Between Blood And Tissue Cells Revealed

New research calls into question one of the most basic assumptions of human genetics: that when it comes to DNA, every cell in the body is essentially identical to every other cell. This discovery may undercut the rationale behind numerous large-scale genetic studies conducted over the last 15 years.

 

[Jumi]

You are using proof of it right now, an intelligently designed digital information system- not to say one cannot also be created spontaneously, but this cannot be verified and is certainly arguably, mathematically problematic.

I've heard this argument before, and remain unconvinced. I think we've even debated this what you feel is problematic mathematically. One thing people with desire to have creation be proven in terms how unlikely things are don't seem to realize that in terms of probabilities everything that has happened has a probability of 1. It's the same idea that loses a lot of money in a poker table. It's mathematically improbable that he has the winning hand again, right? Good reason not to gamble, because our minds don't intuitively understand probabilities.

Frankly if that was all there is to it, I'd still be atheist. Lucky for me then that I had the experience, right?

For the record I was brought up atheist, argued strongly for Darwinian evolution for many decades, but there is something very humbling about arguing with a computer!

Yeah you've said that you were a Darwinian evolutionist before, so I wondered did you pick up modern evolution theory too? Or why the emphasis on Darwin?

Arguing with a computer is interesting. I can see how arguing with DNA is the same thing. It's just going to keep on following the chemical reactions through just like the computer keeps just taking voltage differences while ignoring you. And when a computer is programmed to argue, it's not very rational and doesn't often follow our or the programmer's expectations that well.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I've heard this argument before, and remain unconvinced. I think we've even debated this what you feel is problematic mathematically. One thing people with desire to have creation be proven in terms how unlikely things are don't seem to realize that in terms of probabilities everything that has happened has a probability of 1. It's the same idea that loses a lot of money in a poker table. It's mathematically improbable that he has the winning hand again, right? Good reason not to gamble, because our minds don't intuitively understand probabilities.

And I've heard that argument before too- But you can see the problem with it, if the poker player plays 4 royal flushes in a row winning a million bucks, and as the 'anti fraud' guy at the casino- you tell your boss not to worry; it happened so it has a probability of 1! let him keep playing- no need to suspect cheating!

Point being- of course chance is always possible, that does not mean it's least improbable explanation.

Yeah you've said that you were a Darwinian evolutionist before, so I wondered did you pick up modern evolution theory too? Or why the emphasis on Darwin?

Arguing with a computer is interesting. I can see how arguing with DNA is the same thing. It's just going to keep on following the chemical reactions through just like the computer keeps just taking voltage differences while ignoring you. And when a computer is programmed to argue, it's not very rational and doesn't often follow our or the programmer's expectations that well.

Call it neo-Darwinism if you prefer, it still posits pure blind chance as the originator of new biological features/ information- that's the mathematically problematic part, and learning more about how DNA functions is not helping the case

Right: computers don't share our subjective reasoning. That's why Darwinian evolution does not work as well in computer sims or lab experiments as it does in our imaginations.

Personally I believe this is ultimately (ironically? ) a case of anthropomorphism: everything we do and think and say, is in anticipation of a future consequence, just like optical illusions- it is utterly impossible for us to completely remove the bias of our fundamental brain-wiring from our thought experiments, but a computer can. And without the benefit of anticipation of future consequences, the ability to retain potentially advantageous design changing 'errors' is practically eliminated. The overwhelmingly greater number of deleterious mutations would reign- in a word: Entropy

That's not the whole or slam dunk argument against Darwinian evolution, but certainly one of it's inherent flaws (I would submit to you!)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no evidence that you would ever accept for evolution because you won't allow yourself to reach that conclusion.

I did for about 30 years, and so I still think most people who believe in Darwinism are perfectly intelligent, honest, and capable of critical thought. Are you conceding that you cannot say the same for considering dissenting opinions?

Does a jury have to see a reanimated corpse be killed by a defendant before they can accept forensic evidence? Are you really saying that directly witnessing a crime is the only possible evidence?

I'm saying that a jury should hear the evidence on both sides, there should not be an institutionalized bias in favor of declaring the fatality 'an accident', that any notion of intent is forbidden

we can't directly observe anyone programming the digital code of DNA either, but I believe we have evidence that they did

Here are 29 tests for macroevolution:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Pick any one of them and I will discuss it in a new thread.

That appears to be making a case for common descent, I'm not disputing that, nor does ID in general, nor does Genesis technically. I am skeptical that all the changes along the way were accidental as Darwinism demands (if seldom acknowledges)

But even common descent runs into difficultly when you try to look beyond the sudden appearance of the major phyla- many basic body plans all simply show up 'as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history' as Dawkins puts it