MovieChat Forums > The Atheist Delusion (2016) Discussion > Lawrence Krauss and snowflakes

Lawrence Krauss and snowflakes


In the YouTube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM&feature=youtu.be&t=13m14s

Lawrence Krauss (and Dawkins) may be the only real atheist in this film. I think his comparison of DNA to snowflakes was a bad idea. Snowflakes can be changed radically and they still "work". In DNA changes often lead to deformities or an early death. DNA has information/symbols that have meaning. Snowflake "information" just involves its direct appearance.

reply

In DNA changes often lead to deformities or an early death.

It depends upon how you define "often". Each human is born with around 60 to 90 mutations (DNA changes) and all are typically innocuous/neutral.

Young Earth Creationist websites often claim that "most mutations are harmful" but that is absolutely false. The vast majority just don't have much impact good or bad. That is, they are typically "neutral".

reply

"Each human is born with around 60 to 90 mutations (DNA changes) and all are typically innocuous/neutral."

Being "innocuous" can still involve a deformity (e.g. a birth spot)

I did a Google search for "chances of miscarriage". It says that between week 1 and 2 there is a 75% chance of miscarriage. I guess that would be due to mutations. More severe problems would lead to death even sooner. (i.e. the zygote not being "viable")

Apparently humans have 3 billion base pairs of DNA so 60-90 mutations is 0.000002%...

I think a somewhat relevant comparison is software. Some sources say that the industry average is 10 bugs per 1000 lines of code. That's 1% (compared to 0.000002%). And even then many users don't notice any bugs or if they do they're usually not show-stoppers. So obviously a much lower rate of problems is likely to not be noticeable.

Young Earth Creationist websites often claim that "most mutations are harmful" but that is absolutely false. The vast majority just don't have much impact good or bad. That is, they are typically "neutral".

Well in the case of software the vast majority of bugs that remain in software that is basically working appear to be neutral. I think to properly address their claim we'd need to know exactly what the function of each DNA base pair is. Some might be switched "off" - similar to software code that is "commented out".

reply

You need to watch the full interview Comfort did with Krauss. The fact that it appears Krauss is comparing DNA directly to snowflakes in the movie is partly because Comfort edits his films heavily and uses voice overs to make it seem like they are talking about one thing as opposed to another.

In the full interview with Kruass its easy to see that they are talking purely about "apparent complexity in nature". This is why Krauss brings up the snowflake. To say "dont be fooled by what looks complex in nature". In the movie Comfort does he even adds a little voice over at the end saying "well thats nice but that does not explain the information stored in DNA".... well..... duh because that is not what you actually asked Krauss about. You asked him about COMPLEXITY not information. Its like if i asked you to describe why an apple is red and then went "aha! But that does not explain the taste!" since we are talking about two different things here. You can also see in the full interview Krauss DOES mention (briefly since it was not the topic of their conversation) the origins of DNA. However Ray saw fit to edit this part out for his own movie since discussing the origins of DNA would disprove his entire argument that DNA just arose fully functioning. Ray normally says he makes this edits "for time" but that can not be the case here, since Krauss literally only takes a few seconds to mention the origins of DNA.

NEVER take anything Ray presents as the full truth. Remember this is the guy who thought human altered bananas were proof of god.

reply