Famous Last Repetitive Words

_{October 2, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

More complicated than previously thought… gee, ya think? 😛

A new review in Science by Lemons and McGinnis that surveys Hox gene clusters in different lineages shows that the control of the Hox genes is much, much more complicated than previously thought.

Source

Comments

I have coded for many years, developing complex systems. As a coder, I have learned a very simple reality: complicated and complex are opposites. It is simplicity that permits complexity. Complicatedness only produces challenges for complexity. As I look at the hox gene, it sure looks complicated to me. However, I do agree with DaveScot when he says, "Any code will look like spaghetti when you only understand a small fraction of it." When Dave says, "Actually the genome is looking more and more like object oriented code" I will say that he clearly must have a view of genetic code that is far superior to my own (not by any means out of the range of possibility.) In truth, however, I think that the best knowledge of genetic code that the guys who know have so far still looks like spagetti code. I suspect, however, that the spagetti look is just our ignorance showing. Either it is just our ignorance showing, or this code is produced in a very different way then I produce code.bFast_{October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

Barrett1, you said, "Are you suggesting that the apparent complexity is actually an elegant simplicity and therefore more consistent with what we might expect from a super intelligent designer?" What is it about a super intelligent designer that would cause us to expect life to be simple? Isn't that the position of Darwinists who like to think life is such a simple bag of chemicals that it is accidently created from a bunch of rocks being hit by lightning? That is what I was taught by Darwinists in high school anyway.Jehu_{October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, BC makes an interesting point that I've never heard addressed (at least to my satisfaction). Perhaps this gets into the off-limits topic of guessing the designer's "motives" or "strategy" or "personality" even. Are you suggesting that the apparent complexity is actually an elegant simplicity and therefore more consistent with what we might expect from a super intelligent designer?Barrett1_{October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

But the earth IS the center of the universe and always has been. Ernst Mach once suggested that all the rest of the cosmos is there just to make earth possible. That has a nice ring to it if you ask me so don't ask. I'll bet Hugh Ross would agree too. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

And even spaghetti code requires a cognizant intelligence to create.Scott_{October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

BC Actually the genome is looking more and more like object oriented code. Any code will look like spaghetti when you only understand a small fraction of it. I'm reminded of something Tommy Lee Jones (Agent K) said to Will Smith (who later became Agent J) in the movie "Men in Black".
Ã¢â‚¬Å“1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the Universe; 500 years ago everybody knew that the world was flat: and five minutes ago you thought we were alone on this planet. Imagine what youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll know tomorrow.Ã¢â‚¬Â
DaveScot_{October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

BC, Who said anything about spaghetti code? What we are talking about are complex self-regulating cascades.Jehu_{October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

(Shrug) I don't really know what to say. It seems like RM+NS could create some pretty complicated and tangled systems. In the software world, novice programmers will sometimes produce what is known as "spaghetti code". It's complicated, tangled, and hard to figure out - although that doesn't necessarily mean it was created by a superior programmer, quite the opposite. The existence of spaghetti code in biological systems may be indicative of a superhuman intelligence designing the system, or it may be indicative of a trial-and-error system of gradual buildup (evolution through RM+NS) - which is quite capable of constructing complicated, tangled systems. So, I don't really know that this is evidence for anything. I'm not really a believer in "it's more complicated than we thought" = "must be a designer". (If, on the other hand, genes were laid out in a clear, understandable pattern - e.g. genes involved in the endocrine system were on chromosome 2, genes involved in the brain were on chromosome 3, genes active during childhood development on chromosome 4 - that would be a surprising result for evolution. It would be laid out like a manual, and would look surprisingly unlike a result we would expect from RM+NS.)BC_{October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

From the original article at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/hox_complexity.php "I think the key concept is that Hox genes form a loose network, with multiple factors Ã¢â‚¬â€ the temporal sequencing of colinearity, transcription factors, and miRNAs Ã¢â‚¬â€ that all work together to generate form from genes, and that while this may look like a daunting mess, the complexity of regulation actually facilitates evolutionary change." Evolution never ceases to amaze me. No matter what we discover, Darwinian Evolution accounts for it, and I know this because, well, here we are! No presuppositions here folks.EdH_{October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

I have noticed this myself. It seems like we constantly hear from molecular biologists that things are more complex than originally thought. I consider it an axiom that biological cascades, pathways, and mechanisms will always turn out to be more complex than initially assumed. I think this is because the Darwin world view wants to believe that life is a simple bag of random chemicals. The more complex life turns out to be the steeper the grade of Mt. Improbable.Jehu_{October 2, 2006
October
10
Oct
2
02
2006
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply