Genome complexity: what genes do and don't do (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, January 19, 2019, 13:14 (1925 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I really don’t see how your definitions are compatible with the statements I have bolded.

DAVID: Sloppy thinking and writing. My boldings above and below are my thoughts exactly.

Here are the two bolded quotes you regard as your exact thoughts:
QUOTE: Scientists now understand that the information in the DNA code can only serve as a template for a protein. It cannot possibly serve as instructions for the more complex task of putting the proteins together into a fully functioning being, no more than the characters on a typewriter can produce a story.

And:

DNA is not a cause in an active sense. I think it is better described as a passive data base which is used by the organism to enable it to make the proteins that it requires.

I added the following quotes:
QUOTES: "Accordingly, even single cells change their metabolic pathways, and the way they use their genes to suit those patterns. That is, they “learn,” and create instructions on the hoof.”
“Through the statistical patterns within the storms, instructions are, again, created de novo. The cells, all with the same genes, multiply into hundreds of starkly different types, moving in a glorious ballet to find just the right places at the right times. That could not have been specified in the fixed linear strings of DNA.”

dhw: I would just like to be sure that I have understood you. Are you now saying that the original DNA could not have contained complete instructions for the whole of evolution, apart from when your God dabbled?

DAVID: I'll stick to my approach that everything needed was there from the beginning, except for minor coursed-direction dabbles. All I will accept that cells do is some editing of DNA and the other somewhat unknown genome layers for minor adaptations and primarily all automatic.

I’m sorry, but this is all very confusing. Firstly, your latest comment means your God dabbles the minor changes, and yet the cells edit their DNA for minor changes. Which is it? Secondly, you say “everything” - except minor changes – was there from the beginning, but apparently your exact thoughts are 1) that the DNA code cannot possibly serve as instructions to create a fully functioning being, whereas earlier you claimed that “the original DNA may have contained all the info for evolution” which meant “a complete set of instructions for cells to respond to all stimuli…”. And you have agreed 2) that DNA is a "PASSIVE data base which is used by the organism to enable it to make the proteins that it requires.” A passive data base used by the organism is absolutely not a complete set of instructions, so how can “everything needed” have been there from the beginning? At the start of this post I’ve quoted your self-deprecating comment on your own “sloppy thinking and writing”, but I’m afraid this latest post hasn’t made your thoughts any clearer.