Joined: Jan. 2012
|Quote (sparc @ Sep. 19 2012,22:48)|
| † † † |
|Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 19 2012,14:23)|
| † † † † |
|Probably, if and when we will undesrtand how the operating procedures are coded in the genome, the linguistic componente will be much more apparent, like in any complex coded software.|
Gpuccio, explaining how design will be a piece of cake once we crack the small problem of emergence. Obviously there is a hidden grammar and syntax in coding sequences,. We just need to be able to read and write the language.
Of course if that is true, it makes the 500 bit barrier somewhat moot. The argument from isolated islands depends on the combination lock analogy.
EN&V also declares the gene dead: † † † †
|[...]it is quite clear that the unit "gene" is no more. That is to say, the "gene" is to morphogenesis what "phlogiston" is to chemistry and physics....an obsolete concept. And with the former void of content, the framework of evolutionary/population genetics is, well, gone. That's right: Gone. What do we inherit, then? A phenotype (= RNA sequences; transcripts).|
Poor Dr. Dembski. All his effort and the ridicule for nothing.
What a fucking moron. Where does he think a transcript comes from? One set of studies and he sees fit to redefine a science's concepts for them.
He evidently doesn't know the difference between morphogenetic and evolutionary concepts.
The pop-geneticist's 'gene' is a length of DNA. I think we still inherit chunks of that, despite the ENV discovery that there is also something called a 'phenotype'.
The biochemist's gene is slightly different - a length of DNA that codes for a discrete product: protein or RNA. I think such units are still alive and kicking also.
The phenotypically visible gene is different again - the distinguishable result of particular stretches of DNA, including their RNA transcripts, regulatory sequences and their binding status, activity control, and all that emergent shit.
[eta: Just read more carefully, and he derives his licence from the authors of the ENCODE papers. But they are writing for a literate audience, who hopefully know the difference between evolutionary and genome-organisational concepts.]
Edited by Soapy Sam on Sep. 20 2012,03:04
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G
BTW, when you make little jabs like ‚ÄúI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,‚ÄĚ you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington