What does this even mean relative to evolution or abiogenesis?

[rizdek]

At another website I sometimes peruse, I see this as something this person thinks is proof that this error correction code could not have evolved.

"It is impossible for DNA error correcting systems to have evolved because error correcting systems rely upon intelligent selection of reference codes if the selection of those codes are wrong the error correcting system reads the code as an error and erroneously corrects the code.

Thus trial and error will always result in death.

All life has DNA error correction.

How could such a complex system be developed for each life form so its DNA is corrected truly?

How does an error correction code evolve? It can't. And error correction codes are necessary for adaptive programs in computer science. Without it the program cant make necessary adaptations."

I'm not really asking for ways to refute this guy, I've no interest in debating him. For all I know he's blowing esoteric smoke, but can anyone kind of expand a little on what this means and why it might be associated with abiogenesis or evolution. I know this is a dumb question and would have posted it in the dumb question thread, but apparently it isn't pinned to the top like was previously.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why would an error correcting system be more fantastical than life forms with a larval stage or sperm that includes a spermicide?

Life forms that happened upon (____fill-in-the-existing-trait______) benefited from it, so they capitalized upon it and grew to dominate the gene pool. And it was so beneficial that all their descendants kept it, too.

How could such a complex system be developed for each life form so its DNA is corrected truly?

Arguments from ignorance are not terribly compelling. But i don't know why....?

 

[Keith&Co.]

but can anyone kind of expand a little on what this means and why it might be associated with abiogenesis or evolution. I know this is a dumb question and would have posted it in the dumb question thread, but apparently it isn't pinned to the top like was previously.

He's saying that the ability to determine that DNA is not replicated well is one of those traits that only make sense if someone designed it. That DNA would have instantly poorly-replicated-itself-to-death without it, never giving it the chance to evolve.

I'm guessing the guy also maintains that mutations are 99% lethal.

But all it requires is that it take longer to replicate-with-errors-to-death than it takes to evolve a sumcheck. Estimates on the number of generations required for both would be required to evaluate his claim. I note that he doesnt' seem to offer them. Of course, he'd have to actually understand evolution in order to estimate the number of generations it would take for either...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He's "right"--but it's meaningless. DNA does not have an error correcting code.

It has a somewhat error-tolerant code but what he's referring to is part of the replication process. There is an enzyme that checks the copy as it's being made. That's not a sophisticated error-correcting code, that's the equivalent of the verify pass after you burn a DVD.

 

[Bomb#20]

At another website I sometimes peruse, I see this as something this person thinks is proof that this error correction code could not have evolved.

"... How does an error correction code evolve? It can't. And error correction codes are necessary for adaptive programs in computer science. Without it the program cant make necessary adaptations."

The company I work for got its current error correcting codes by evolving them.

 

[rizdek]

Thanks to all who have responded. Loren, I'll try to do some more research on that enzyme that checks the copy as it's being made. It sounds interesting.

 

[Mageth]

Thanks to all who have responded. Loren, I'll try to do some more research on that enzyme that checks the copy as it's being made. It sounds interesting.

A good place to start...

Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

At another website I sometimes peruse, I see this as something this person thinks is proof that this error correction code could not have evolved.

"It is impossible for DNA error correcting systems to have evolved because error correcting systems rely upon intelligent selection of reference codes if the selection of those codes are wrong the error correcting system reads the code as an error and erroneously corrects the code.

Thus trial and error will always result in death.

All life has DNA error correction.

There would seem to be irony in this argument for intelligent design... that there would even need to be "DNA error correction" in the first place.

 

[Kharakov]

At another website I sometimes peruse, I see this as something this person thinks is proof that this error correction code could not have evolved.

"... How does an error correction code evolve? It can't. And error correction codes are necessary for adaptive programs in computer science. Without it the program cant make necessary adaptations."

The company I work for got its current error correcting codes by evolving them.

They obviously didn't do this intentionally.

 

[Jarhyn]

At another website I sometimes peruse, I see this as something this person thinks is proof that this error correction code could not have evolved.

"... How does an error correction code evolve? It can't. And error correction codes are necessary for adaptive programs in computer science. Without it the program cant make necessary adaptations."

The company I work for got its current error correcting codes by evolving them.

They obviously didn't do this intentionally.

all they did was provide an algorithm with an environment that selected for mutants which corrected errors.

Since mutants in nature with error correction or detection are more survivable, the agency behind his own application of evolved error correction does not invalidate it's validity in showing his point: when an environment in which error correction provided a survival benefit existed, there was a population in which that trait emerged, and that population gained dominance.

 

[skepticalbip]

But, in nature, that error correction has to be faulty to some extent or evolution of that species would stop. Flawless copying would result in no change.

 

[Kharakov]

At another website I sometimes peruse, I see this as something this person thinks is proof that this error correction code could not have evolved.

"... How does an error correction code evolve? It can't. And error correction codes are necessary for adaptive programs in computer science. Without it the program cant make necessary adaptations."

The company I work for got its current error correcting codes by evolving them.

They obviously didn't do this intentionally.

all they did was provide an algorithm with an environment that selected for mutants which corrected errors.

Since mutants in nature with error correction or detection are more survivable, the agency behind his own application of evolved error correction does not invalidate it's validity in showing his point: when an environment in which error correction provided a survival benefit existed, there was a population in which that trait emerged, and that population gained dominance.

Ohh, you mean like how we correct one another?

Because there is the obvious necessity that they created an algorithmic environment that interacted with the algorithms which had algorithms that caused pseudo random mutations, all working together. Unless, of course, they did what I was thinking about earlier today before I showed up here.

I was thinking about someone randomly ordering bits of information to feed to a processor (maybe after BIOS level, you know, like mind evolution after bio's level of evolution) or group of processors and seeing what developed- you know, giving it access to the internet, to local information stores, etc. Just see if any program just stuck- keep on trying different bit sequences until you had something that took off on its own- and see how it interacted. Might be too crazy to do though.

I'd say error correction in our case is: do our actions result in greater joy and happiness for all beings? If not, is there something we can do to do so (being able to take a hit for the team might help a bit at the early stages)?

 

[Kharakov]

Flawless copying would result in no change.

This is a horrible thing to say but: that's what the guy at Kinko's said.

 

[Narapoia]

But, in nature, that error correction has to be faulty to some extent or evolution of that species would stop. Flawless copying would result in no change.

Simplistically this is correct - however natural sexual variation (and gene flow) would still be sources of genetic variation in the advent of a perfect DNA repair mechanism. Since the vast, vast majority of DNA repair occurs in somatic cells it is more beneficial for an organism to have as perfect a repair process as possible to prevent dangerous levels of DNA damage and ultimately mutation. As it stands the replication mechanism makes about 1 error in a billion copied bases, that is a staggering level of accuracy. The Wiki entry on DNA repair is quite interesting - it's structured better than a lot of articles on wikipedia.

 

[Jokodo]

But, in nature, that error correction has to be faulty to some extent or evolution of that species would stop. Flawless copying would result in no change.

Technically correct, but realistically, a perfect error correction system is not achievable anyway.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But, in nature, that error correction has to be faulty to some extent or evolution of that species would stop.

Would 'imperfect' be a better term?
Evolution works with 'imperfect,' it rewards 'just good enough to get by.'

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But, in nature, that error correction has to be faulty to some extent or evolution of that species would stop.

Would 'imperfect' be a better term?
Evolution works with 'imperfect,' it rewards 'just good enough to get by.'

Much like contemporary QA/QC for electronics manufacturing.

 

[Underseer]

It's just the same argument from ignorance that lies at the bottom of all teleological arguments. I can't imagine how X came to be, therefore I know how X came to be: a magical being magicked it into existence.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's just the same argument from ignorance that lies at the bottom of all teleological arguments. I can't imagine how X came to be, therefore I know how X came to be: a magical being magicked it into existence.

Yep. The same could be said for all chemical and physical processes. How do hydrogen and oxygen know to form water? How do protons and neutrons know how to form a nucleus?

This guy is just another religionist who thinks that cleverness and intelligence are the same thing, likely because he lacks much of the latter. Or perhaps he's just another religious bigot. Who knows?

 

[Elixir]

Thus trial and error will always result in death.

Except when it doesn't? Hey - life always results in death, ergo life cannot exist?

I really don't get what this guy is trying to say.