From:  (Michael Snider)
Subject: Re: Object-oriented creation
Followup-To: alt.religion.messianic,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Organization: BNR
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:10:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.003242.6@sycraft.com>, ken@sycraft.com (Ken
Richardson) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Sep28.100020.27769@hsr.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
> > I should mention that comparing genomes directly is a relatively new technique.
> > The older, more standard, technique is to compare proteins of individuals ( which
> > relies ONLY on the 10% meaningful DNA) and the results are the same: 99%
> > identical. So there is no need to doubt that humans and chimps are very much
> > alike. No, the stunning thing, which alone almost proves the
> > chimp/human-relation, is that also the junk-DNA are alike. 
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > Not only does DNA-dating increase the integrity of the existing dating techniques,
> > it supports and CONFIRMS the theory of evolution even further. 
> 
> Well, I appreciate your conviction.  But "confirmation" is a bit strong.
> 
> I mean, consider for a moment: If you were the Creator, and you were about
> to create life, what techniques would you use to put order and simplicity
> into the task?  Object-oriented techniques!
> 
> What are object-oriented techniques?  They are a philosophy and approach to
> computer programming that promote code re-use.  And computer programs are
> not unlike DNA programs.
> 
> In fact, object oriented programming makes reusing code easier than *not*
> reusing code.  So extending this to its natural conclusion, I would expect
> the process of creating life to be a more simple and orderly process by
> reusing DNA rather than not.
> 
> So while at first sight it may seem astounding that chimps and humans have
> 99% similarity in their DNA, I would be surprised if that were *not* the
> case, considering the similarity of the overall "systems".  Assuming, of
> course, that object oriented techniques were applied in their creation.
> 
> While my analogy may seem only tangentially relevant to those who are not
> personally experienced with object oriented programming, those who *have*
> used those techniques will surely see the applicability of the analogy to
> the discussion of "How could chimp/human DNA be 99% alike?"

I _am_ familiar with OOPS and and I'm afraid your argument does not address
the point--in an OOP environment "junk" DNA would be similar no matter what
the relatedness of the organisms in question, if there was junk at all (not
very good design, IMHO).  The fact that junk DNA exists and is more similar
in closely related species than in randomly chosen or distantly related
species is a prediction of evolutionary theory very nicely confirmed by
observation, and is difficult to account for in teleological systems like
special creation. 

> 
> There is, after all, a high degree of similarity between DNA programs
> and computer programs.

This deserves a better treatment than I can give it in the time I have (I'm
at work :)), but let me make two quick observations.  First, DNA code looks
very
little like the purposive, algorythmically rigorous code a good programmer
produces (all that "junk," for one thing).  Second, computer models like
Tierra, which has been discussed recently on t.o., give reasonable 
approximations of evolution as described in modern Darwinian theory--messy,
opportunistic, purposeless, and effective at exploitation of "ecological"
niches.

> --------------------------------------------
> Ken Richardson		SyCraft Software
> ken@sycraft.com		Colorado Springs, CO

Cheers,

***** Michael Snider ********** alas, no email, so reply by post ******

Talk of fame, honor, pleasure, wealth, all are dirt compared with
affection.
                                                   Charles Darwin          

Critics quarrel with other critics. With an artist, no sane man quarrels.  

                                                   George Santayana        

                      
Newsgroups: talk.origins