If you are going to call individual molecules “digital states” then all of chemistry works exactly the same way DNA works.
2 Likes
Tsk tsk. Still trying to argue by analogy. Another reason scientists roll their eyes at the cluelessness of software programmers attacking evolutionary theory.
1 Like
You need to show that the same theories do apply to DNA code instead of just assuming it.
I don’t know of many computer programs where 90% of the program lacks function. In the human genome, around 90% of the sequence is non-functional. The percentage is even higher in other species, such as the onion.
How do you even measure this?
That doesn’t happen in biology. There is base mismatch repair and break repair, but the cell has no idea if those mismatches will affect the function of the cell.
In the case of biology the actual chemical and physical properties of the molecules is what determines function. Computer code appears to be an abstract language whereas DNA is a concrete language. At least in my experience, this is the big separator between the two. In a computer program, it’s function is not determined by hydrogen bonds, hydrophobicity, and other factors.
Added in edit:
It is also worth mentioning that biological function is certainly not binary. There can be a continuum of signalling and binding with protein-protein, protein-DNA, protein-RNA, RNA-DNA, and DNA-DNA interactions. At least to my limited understanding of computer engineering, this is a big separator between the two systems. Biology is much more analog, and this may not be captured by simpler computer models. Also, the number of molecules that are interacting would seem to be very difficult to model using modern computers.
2 Likes
In most Internet forums where this topic comes up, someone mentions the Avida project and software:
I mentioned Avida in part because some of the assertions appearing in this thread don’t seem to apply so well to Avida. However, I am no expert on Avida so perhaps those more knowledgeable here will correct me on that opinion.
(For all of us geezers who like to reminisce about days gone by, perhaps you remember when mathematician John Conway got this ball rolling with the fascinating Game of Life program in his groundbreaking article in Scientific American. That was in 1970, if I recall. Even many years later I used to assign it as a programming project to Data Structures students. Conway started with a simple checkerboard-like, 2-dimensional array but things got more interesting when students had to implement “virtual arrays” which knew no boundaries other than the memory capacity of the computer to store the coordinates of live cells.)
4 Likes
I wonder if it would be possible for you (and not just you) to not use deprecatory and patronizing language.
1 Like
5 posts were split to a new topic: Dale and Tim play Ultracricket
Interestingly enough the game is still available online for those who wish to experiment!
I still remember my amazement the first time I saw a “glider” evolve. 
1 Like
Again, by this definition I think we might define everything in nature as a digital operation, which (again) tells us nothing useful about how it functions. (is there any chemical or physical interaction that cannot be described this way? I’m going with “no” at 95% confidence.)
…AND…
If you see everything is a code, then there is nothing that could possibly persuade you that DNA does not operate as a digital code (with analog exceptions noted!).
What if we tackle this from the other direction? Not everything humans write down is an operational code - humans can also generate nonsense (quite a bit, actually 
). Likewise, DNA that is non-coding and non-regulatory (ie: junk) is non-operational nonsense.
… I was going somewhere with this, but Tim and Dale distracted me … BIAB
1 Like
Woah, woah, woah, hold your horse. Me and my church reject inherent guilt, proclaim that every sin is personal and that no one is, at least spiritually, burdened by their ancestor’s sins.
Mod Edit: Djordje is refering to a comment I just moved here: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/dale-and-tim-play-ultracricket/3816 /fnord
I have it on my tablet and play with it from time to time. 
I didn’t mean to imply anything about inherited guilt. You’ve never seen a one-week-old, red in the face and waving fists and kicking legs, throwing a fit because she is upset for whatever reason? Or you’ve had to teach children to grab something from another child and declare, “Mine!! 
”, whether it was or not? 
What does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with the fact that we are all perfectly capable of producing our own personal sin from week one, and inherited guilt is another discussion.
Babies are sinning?
Is this common view among Christians in the west?
1 Like
…[an angry] fit, apparently.
It does not reflect my personal view. I doubt that babies are aware that they have sinned.
The scriptural support for babies not sinning or being judged comes from here:
2 Samuel 12:19-21 New International Version (NIV)
19 David noticed that his attendants were whispering among themselves, and he realized the child was dead. “Is the child dead?” he asked.
“Yes,” they replied, “he is dead.”
20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.
21 His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”
22 He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
So, David, himself the sinner, in this case, believed that he would rejoin his son in heaven one day.
That’s how I believe and I think that there’s a good degree of agreement in this regard. But I don’t know for sure.
PS I’d love to hear what Allen @AllenWitmerMiller has to say!
1 Like
We all sin unaware, to one degree or another… especially if we don’t believe there is such a thing as sin.
Personally, I disagree with this. I think that people deny sin, but I do not believe that they are unaware of it. The Holy Spirit convicts of sin. We are born of the image of God. Obviously, we must get to the point where we can process and analyze, but once there, we all know. Just my opinion.
2 Likes
Agreed.
1 Like
…not that they articulate that to themselves.
1 Like