















Comments     Threshold


RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By MozeeToby on 1/14/2010 2:09:46 PM , Rating: 3
Think of God using DNA/RNA as the programming language like a programmer use’s C++, since a common language is used all species or programs will share DNA and may share more or less depending on biological features.

This doesn't do anything to explain a multitude of things that are present in the genetic record, things that evolution does a good job of explaining.

Why do all marsupials (for example) share variations of genes that are more similar than than same gene in other mammals? More generally, why can a scientist predict with good accuracy which animals will have the most similar coding for a protein? Why is it that if I map species by similarity of a protein, that same map is held to if I do the analysis on a different protein?

Being a programmer, I also like to use tech analogies, and the only analogy that I can think of that fits what we see in genetics is a Genetic algorithm (i.e. one that simulate evolution to solve an engineering problem).

RE: Study based on unproven assumptions
By jahwarrior on 1/14/10, Rating: -1
By MozeeToby on 1/14/2010 4:19:57 PM , Rating: 4
The 'Algorithm' in nature that selects who gets to reproduce is called natural selection. In a genetic algorithm, a fitness algorithm is run to determing which parts of the population 'survive' and get to reproduce and which parts don't. The same way that unfit animals (or plants, or bacteria, or any living thing) never get the chance to reproduce, whereas fit animals do.

Honestly, once you admit A) DNA is the instructions for life and B) DNA copying is imprefect, everything else follows from there. Imperfections in the copy will manifest themselves in the child organism. Most imprefections will cause problems, but some small number of them will improve survival chances. The child organism that recieves mutations that improve survival chances are more likely to reproduce.

That's all that evolution is saying, if you can find a flaw in that argument, have at it. But 150 years of research, catologing, and critical thinking haven't been able to.

