Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 7
I take it back, I don't have time to play this game.

From where I'm sitting, the only person playing games is you. Granted, I would have phrased the question differently, but you're pretty steadfastly trying to weasel out of why you think we should accept your flat assertion that "the genetic code" is designed.

Since you seem to be using "the genetic code" in a way that doesn't map in any way to the proper scientific definition, you should probably state what you're studying that you find so convincing.

I'm fairly sure you don't mean DNA itself. You state "The complexity of DNA refers to its physical structure, its arrangement of parts." But since DNA is in fact not at all complex in its physical structure, and you keep alluding to other things, I think you're just stating your case badly.

I'm guessing that you mean the expression of DNA. And not just the first level expression, which is just a set of proteins, but the entire organism. DNA doesn't exactly encode an entire human being, but it does encode for proteins that eventually result in a human being. That's pretty fascinating stuff.

The problem with your argument - assuming I'm capturing what you mean, rather than what you've said - is that it's by no means sufficient to imply design. "I don't understand it" or "I can't conceive of it" isn't an argument. It's just an admission of personal failure of imagination.

What you're encountering is Emergent Behavior. "Emergent behavior" is the phenomenon where relatively simple interactions produce complex results.

It's something you see over and over again in all sorts of different fields. One of the simpler examples is the 3 body problem, where it becomes extremely difficult to accurately predict the orbital motions of 3 bodies that are attracted to each other by gravity. The principles involved are very simple, but the resulting motions are terribly complex. To this day, we do no more than approximate it for all but the simplest cases.

Another common example is social insects, like ants. Ants have relatively few behaviors, but the behavior of the colony is very complex.

As a programmer, I've generated all sorts of systems where relatively simple rules have produced complicated, unexpected results. I've had AIs I've written execute tactics that I had not explicitly coded. I had simply set up a set of equations, and there were useful interactions in the equations I did not foresee.

The point being that the complexity of the results of DNA code groups is irrelevant. We have plenty of examples of things which are definitely not designed where simple effects give you complex results. When we look at DNA itself, it's actually very simple. As are the mechanisms whereby it changes.

Which is why, I believe, you're saying "it's complicated" and we're saying "it's simple."

- Gus
Print the post  

Announcements

When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.