Building a Better DNA Analogy (for the purpose of explaining its origins)

[Wowbagger]

I have a hypothesis. I hypothesize that a substantial portion of Intelligent Design ideas are actually dependent upon a history of taking analogies too far. For example, the whole idea that DNA contains "specified information" is really a consequence of taking the analogy of "DNA is like a language", too far.
Or, for another prominent example, that the flagellum of a bacterium is "like a machine".

(Perhaps the root cause has a lot more to do with how unfamiliar I.D. proponents tend to be with the customs of scientific discussion, but I digress.)

Although lots of folks have tried to describe DNA as a "language", perhaps with good intentions of explaining its "purpose", it is clear that such an analogy is not very good for explaining the origin of its structure, as it has no standards of syntax and semantics, that "real" specified information would have.

Another famously bad analogy is the "Blueprint". This analogy is bad, because there is no point-to-point mapping of a piece of DNA to a piece of the human body.

Dawkins is famous for pointing out that genes often function more like a "Recipe". But, even that analogy wears thin, if used too often, because (in the minds of ID proponents) one might be inclined to think that a recipe was made with the intention of making something. Recipes for cakes do not write themselves, automatically, in nature, of course.

Perhaps a slightly better analogy, than all of those, has been under our noses, for a while: The Snowflake. Obviously, it is not perfect, either.
But: the snowflake is a complex structure that emerges in nature, that most I.D. proponents accept as natural. Then, they try to claim DNA is somehow different. (It is, but I will mention two key differences I am aware of, later.)

When we can demonstrate how DNA is more like a snowflake than any of those other analogies, perhaps it can help them understand how DNA can emerge naturally.

I will attempt to jumpstart such a demonstration, here:

A snowflake forms as water freezes, and crystallizes, on a microscopic speck of dirt. Eventually it gets too heavy to stay floating in the air, and falls to the ground. (We can even predict the shape of the snowflake, by measuring the temperature of the air!)

And, sometimes that original speck of dirt might actually fall out from the middle of the flake, leaving a hollow center, and no direct trace of what it formed around.

One key difference is that DNA strands have gone through many iterations of growing complexity, before it reached the current state of its variety.

One class of such iterations are temperature fluctuations. Though, this impacts the earliest predecessors of DNA, a lot more than it does, modern DNA. As energy was applied to the early DNA predecessors, it may have melted away portions of them, but not always the whole thing. Something was left, for more complexity to build itself on, perhaps rather unevenly. (Snowflakes do not usually show this kind of thing, because the presence of enough heat will generally melt the whole flake, at once.)

Perhaps, sometimes, the earliest pre-DNA structures would fall off, like the center of some snowflakes, leaving no direct trace of what the current level of complexity formed around.

Another, more obvious, class of iterations is that of reproduction and natural selection. I assume I would not need to get into the details of that, here. Though, a more comprehensive version of this analogy should try to drive home the point, in this direction.


The second key difference is that DNA happens to self-replicate, through the process of building its own replication machines; and snow does not. Though, honestly, do not think this makes much of a difference, when one is discussing how DNA could originate naturally. The self-replication thing is merely a side effect of its chemical make-up.

So, my Origins of DNA analogy could be summarized as this: "Imagine a snowflake, that could unevenly melt, allow more crystals to form upon it, lopsidedly, over and over again; and then the middle falls out while this happens."

It is a lot more words than "language" or "blueprint", but I hypothesize that building such an analogy could be effective in dispelling at least some of the mistaken ideas I.D. proponents have. Though, this does assume they only came into those ideas by taking too many other analogies too seriously.

So, what are your thoughts? Can anyone provide something better? I am bracing myself for harsh criticism, so feel free to bring that on, as well!

 

[Reality Check]

I would be tempted to extend Dawkin's recipe analogy:
DNA is a encyclopedia of cooking written over a period of billions of years. It includes recipes that work, recipes that do not work and recipes that use other recipes. There are recipes that are only indirectly related to food, e.g. recipes that build ovens to cook food and recipes to build the encyclopedia.
This encyclopedia has new editions published at frequent intervals but there is no proofreading. So errors happen and propagate. Most errors have no effect.

 

[blutoski]

Maybe it's my style, but I try to avoid analogies as much as possible. Reasons:

• I feel that observers will learn more about the analogy than about the underlying topic
• Disanalogies become source of doubt for observers.
• Sophist opponents will invest in arguing about the analogy - the more time the spend doing this, the less time observers are exposed to actual facts about evolution. And that's their objective.

The other thing is that analogy can be absorbed indirectly while describing the actual subject matter. For example, when we talk about biological system components that were present in an earlier stage of development but not present in the current stage, we talk about 'scaffolding'. Diversion to analogy to explain scaffolding is unnecessary.

 

[Ashles]

(good points)

I agree completely.

The discussion also often gets derailed when people describe DNA as a code, and then point to the definition of a code as implying conscious aplication of symbols to represent other things, as though this backs up their point.

The point of course being missed that DNA is the only concept described as a code that does not conform to this definition and in fact is defined seperately in most dictionaries.
(And of course that how we define and assign words to things does not affect their actual true nature in reality.)

I like the example of an Ox-Bow lake - a perfectly natural (and very large) construct that forms in a consistent and predictable pattern, almost as though some 'information' has been transmitted for this to happen. But nobody claims Ox-Bow lakes are proof of Intelligent Design (do they?)

But I think your snowflake example is better.

 

[CapelDodger]

The other thing is that analogy can be absorbed indirectly while describing the actual subject matter. For example, when we talk about biological system components that were present in an earlier stage of development but not present in the current stage, we talk about 'scaffolding'. Diversion to analogy to explain scaffolding is unnecessary.

"Scaffolding" in this context is a form of metaphor, which is itself scaled-down analogy. I think you're right; a scattering of stand-alone metaphors is far less diversionary than a full-blown analogy, but still conveys concepts efficiently.

 

[blutoski]

"Scaffolding" in this context is a form of metaphor, which is itself scaled-down analogy. I think you're right; a scattering of stand-alone metaphors is far less diversionary than a full-blown analogy, but still conveys concepts efficiently.

There is an old thread here at JREF (I can't seem to find it for searching -?) where a poster had an interesting idea about what may have led to the consistent chiral nature of nucleotides, but it was totally confusing because he dedicated a lot of the text to building up his analogy. I was about 40% through his paper when it started to dawn on me that he wasn't talking about electrical engineering, but about biochemistry instead.

His proposal was intelligent and innovative, and could have been described in three sentences; the analogy was superfluous. The target audience would presumably have been biologists or biochemists, so an analogy using unfamiliar electrical engineering jargon just wasted everybody's time and led to confusion and ultimately frustration. We needed an analogy to understand the analogy.


By the same token, the complexity of the snowflake analogy may confuse people who lack the basic technical knowledge about the analogy's underlying science. My sister, for example, does not know what freezing is, does not know that snowflakes are ice crystals, does not know that ice is a crystal, does not understand scale - such that she'd have a lot of resistance accepting that snowflakes are nucleated by dust particles that she cannot see when she looks at one -, and would need a lot of convincing to accept that part of a snowflake could melt, but the rest remain frozen. She'd probably ask me to demonstrate.

 

[Wowbagger]

I feel that observers will learn more about the analogy than about the underlying topic
(snip)

This is a risk. But, it can be minimized, with the right balance.

I see the use of analogies as a necessary tool, for communicating ideas. Especially to the types of folks who, for one reason or another, already prefer analogies to actual scientific analysis.

If my hypothesis is correct, and much of I.D. is really dependent on abusing analogies, one possible strategy is to use their own mentality against them. If they say "DNA is a code, and snowflakes are NOT codes!", you can fight back by saying "DNA is much more like a snowflake than you think! Here is why..."

I agree that the more time spent explaining an analogy is time away from conveying the actual facts. That is why there needs to be a balance. Keep the analogy brief, and then get into the details: "...and here are the experiments that verified this analogous behavior..."

I suspect it could drive home the point deeper than merely giving the straight facts. (Keep in mind the mentality of the folks we are dealing with.)

Diversion to analogy to explain scaffolding is unnecessary.

In my analogy, it is a "speck of dirt" that is analogous to the earliest stages of DNA, which is much less of a diversion than "scaffolding".

I was about 40% through his paper when it started to dawn on me that he wasn't talking about electrical engineering, but about biochemistry instead.

He probably did not strike the right balance. I recognize the danger, but I would not assume it would be impossible to address.

By the same token, the complexity of the snowflake analogy may confuse people who lack the basic technical knowledge about the analogy's underlying science.

Unless the audience is all a bunch of two-year-olds, I think it would be relatively safe to assume most folks are familiar with the basic gist of what snowflakes are. They might not have known some of the details: that it begins with a speck of dirt, for example. But, those can be covered quickly, and I doubt they will be challenged.

There is a difference between making things easy to understand, and insulting the intelligence of the audience.

The discussion also often gets derailed when people describe DNA as a code, and then point to the definition of a code as implying conscious aplication of symbols to represent other things, as though this backs up their point.

Yes, "code" is another bad analogy.

I like the example of an Ox-Bow lake - a perfectly natural (and very large) construct that forms in a consistent and predictable pattern, almost as though some 'information' has been transmitted for this to happen. But nobody claims Ox-Bow lakes are proof of Intelligent Design (do they?)

That is good, but less commonly understood, I think.

But I think your snowflake example is better.

Thanks, but I cannot claim to originate it. Others have tried to shove the snowflake at them, before, but unsuccessfully.
I think the problem is that the analogy was never developed enough.

However, it is possible that someone could develop an even better analogy than that. I would like to hear any suggestions anyone has.

Also, any feedback on the construction of my example analogy would be appreciated, as well.

I would be tempted to extend Dawkin's recipe analogy:
(snip)

I think that might be getting a little too diluted.

Of course, my example is not exactly very tight, either, with its "lopsided snowflakes". But, I would like to see ways to make an analogy-based approach get stronger, not weaker, with these discussions.

Analogies are like circles. None of them are perfect. But, we try to draw them as accurately as possible.

 

[Acleron]

Wowbagger: Very nicely put.

I would extend your idea to all analogies in science. An analogy is only useful as a teaching tool and must be discarded as soon as the subject is approached in any depth, otherwise it is the analogy that is being discussed, not the subject. Analogies usually relate to commonplace experiences and the very small, very large, very fast, very hot, very cold and very complex are not common and are not described by what we can normally sense. Most of the misconstrued science discussed in this forum can be ascribed to the idea that the above areas can be described in terms of normal experience, unfortunately, they cannot be so described.

 

[Earthborn]

How about DNA as a string of templates for making proteins?

 

[athon]

You've encountered one of the biggest hurdles in science communication. The humble tool of the metaphor or analogy.

The problem is that communicating science to the layman, or describing concepts for the first time, is near impossible without using them. We learn through constructing new concepts based on what information we already possess, so employing a similar structure as a scaffold means you can convey complex ideas far quicker than going from first principles.

The dilemma is knowing just how much in a scaffold is analogous to a novel concept. The 'expert' knows the limitations while the 'learner' often doesn't.

You're certainly right regarding the confusion it causes. I have a couple of papers on the subject of communications and the use of analogies which argue the same thing you've said here. The problem is that such limitations of analogies are difficult to embed in the context of a didactic discussion - they only become apparent once you know the context of an analogy, hence you get a catch-20 forming.

Athon

 

[shadron]

I would be tempted to extend Dawkin's recipe analogy:
DNA is a encyclopedia of cooking written over a period of billions of years. It includes recipes that work, recipes that do not work and recipes that use other recipes. There are recipes that are only indirectly related to food, e.g. recipes that build ovens to cook food and recipes to build the encyclopedia.
This encyclopedia has new editions published at frequent intervals but there is no proofreading. So errors happen and propagate. Most errors have no effect.

This analogy is pretty apt, but it has problems in the area of connotation. When I read "recipe" I immediately think of something constructed or developed by a human intelligence. If you can get past that, then the rest fits pretty well. Since using an analogy is all about impressions, this seems tto be a big problem.

In the newer ways of thinking about some genes as switches, you need to extend the second dimension of this analogy: a recipe says to use this other recipe, whereas without it you use a different one, and they in turn can do the same thing.

 

[Wowbagger]

I would extend your idea to all analogies in science. An analogy is only useful as a teaching tool and must be discarded as soon as the subject is approached in any depth, otherwise it is the analogy that is being discussed, not the subject.
(snip)

Right. I suspect most professional scientists already know this. And, unfortunately, most I.D. proponents do not.

How about DNA as a string of templates for making proteins?

That is good, for describing the how DNA functions (or for its "purpose"). But, says little of how it originates. It goes back to DNA being "like a code".

Unless you can expand on that, to demonstrate otherwise?

The dilemma is knowing just how much in a scaffold is analogous to a novel concept. The 'expert' knows the limitations while the 'learner' often doesn't.

Sometimes the 'expert' does not know the limitations, either. Sometimes the expert's study of a subject will be dependent on those analogies. Sad, but true.

If Behe could only think less about how the flagellum is "like a machine", and learned more about how it could form out of a co-opted gullet, "like how a lake turns into a skating rink, in the winter*", he would not be so prone to declare it was irreducibly complex.
Showing him the data does not seem to have an impact. Perhaps building the right analogy could.

Actually, it might not convince Behe, himself, since he has other investments in I.D., but it might sway some of the folks who would listen to him.

(* the lake thing is not necessarily the best analogy. It was the only one I thought of, quickly. Perhaps I got too much cold weather in the mind.)

In the newer ways of thinking about some genes as switches, you need to extend the second dimension of this analogy: a recipe says to use this other recipe, whereas without it you use a different one, and they in turn can do the same thing.

The recipe includes ingredients that activate or deactivate other ingredients, including (but certainly not limited to) themselves. And, some are only triggered through different environmental conditions.

That is quite a complicated cake y'all are baking, there!

 

[blutoski]

In my analogy, it is a "speck of dirt" that is analogous to the earliest stages of DNA, which is much less of a diversion than "scaffolding".

Hm. Well, now I'm confused about what you're trying to convey. We don't know anything about the early stages of DNA, so I wouldn't know what analogy to use at all.

Scaffolding is an artefact of evolution rather than abiogenesis.

Unless the audience is all a bunch of two-year-olds, I think it would be relatively safe to assume most folks are familiar with the basic gist of what snowflakes are. They might not have known some of the details: that it begins with a speck of dirt, for example. But, those can be covered quickly, and I doubt they will be challenged.

Prepare. For. Disappointment.

A recent survey showed that only a minority of Canadian adults can explain seasons. Something like 12%. That's covered in Kindergarten. Americans fared worse.

There is a difference between making things easy to understand, and insulting the intelligence of the audience.

You're preaching to the choir here. I'm Mr. Rhetoric.

Not to bait the thread, but my feeling is that creationism has many origins, some more relevant in some regions than others. But I don't think it's a preference for thinking in terms of analogies. I think the major contributors globally are:

• simply never having heard of evolution at all (most of the world is like this)
• cultural dominance for creationism with evolution only touched on in terms of onesided critiques (creationism in the West is largely like this, associated with Abrahamic religions)
• personal attachment to iconoclasm and rejection of authority and science by extention (creationism in the West has a lot of this, associated with Newage religions)

I find it much easier to believe that the difference in evolutionary uptake between countries like the UK versus the US are a product of their educational systems and sociopolitical environment than something as abstract as differences in individual preferences for analogy among the citizenry.


But, speaking to your original intent, the snowflake analogy covers some details that the others don't, and it's nice to have an analogy that doesn't draw from something that's already tainted with human manufacture (design) such as scaffolding or computer simulations.

 

[blutoski]

Oh, one critique about snowflakes specifically, though: it seems to be speaking to the concept of complexity. I really advise against this in creation/evolution debates because it lends inappropriate credibility to the ID central theme of irreducible complexity.

Instead, I just ask them to explain how they know which objects are more complex than others. Is the process scientific? If not; how is ID a science?

 

[CapelDodger]

How about DNA as a string of templates for making proteins?

How about DNA as a string of templates for making an electorate ?

 

[Earthborn]

That is good, for describing the how DNA functions (or for its "purpose"). But, says little of how it originates. It goes back to DNA being "like a code".

Unless you can expand on that, to demonstrate otherwise?

Templates can be used to make other templates, in fact DNA consists of both the positive and the negative template. Every copy will look very similar to the template it was made from, but there are also a few differences. Imagine millions of generations of making copies from copies and it is not so hard to understand that the original templates held very different information.

Templates can also be used to store information from other sources, so the earliest examples of DNA may have recorded information from something else which means that it didn't need to have formed naturally all by itself; it may have formed from the influences of its environment.

 

[Wowbagger]

Hm. Well, now I'm confused about what you're trying to convey. We don't know anything about the early stages of DNA, so I wouldn't know what analogy to use at all.

We know enough about DNA, to develop theories about its early stages. And, we can test those theories, in various ways.

Any theory you choose usually has some early pre-cursor, perhaps RNA or something like RNA, before DNA came about. But, those precursors are no longer attached to the modern DNA we see today.

Just like a 'speck of dirt' falling out of the middle of a snowflake.

A recent survey showed that only a minority of Canadian adults can explain seasons. Something like 12%. That's covered in Kindergarten. Americans fared worse.

The real question is: How many of them are willing to learn if given the chance? That 12% may have been raised in an environment where their natural curiosity for knowledge had been squashed too early for them to recognize its value.

A good analogy might be a good tool to reopen that nature. Especially if they already like thinking in analogies.

Even if we do not reach that 12%. We can still reach a different percentage, from a different demographic of the population.

Not to bait the thread, but my feeling is that creationism has many origins,
(snip)

No doubt, that is true.

The process could even be traced to the very evolution of the mind, how it is wired in such a way that cognitive dissonance is too easy to resolve incorrectly.

The defense of a Creator as "fact", AND the reliance on analogies both stem from consequences of that mental heritage.

I find it much easier to believe that the difference in evolutionary uptake between countries like the UK versus the US are a product of their educational systems and sociopolitical environment than something as abstract as differences in individual preferences for analogy among the citizenry.

But, both those sociopolitical environments and the reliance on analogies might stem from the same root cause of mental evolution.

We can use that mental evolution, to help them learn, instead of trying to yank it away from them. A good analogy might be a good tool to help us do that.

But, speaking to your original intent, the snowflake analogy covers some details that the others don't, and it's nice to have an analogy that doesn't draw from something that's already tainted with human manufacture (design) such as scaffolding or computer simulations.

Yes, an analogy not tainted with manufacture. That is the goal, here. At least for DNA.

Oh, one critique about snowflakes specifically, though: it seems to be speaking to the concept of complexity. I really advise against this in creation/evolution debates because it lends inappropriate credibility to the ID central theme of irreducible complexity.

I think most ID proponents accept the snowflake as a complex pattern that can arise in nature, without intelligent intervention. The whole idea of showing how DNA is analogous to snowflakes is to rid the idea that even its form of complexity could arise without intelligent intervention.

Instead, I just ask them to explain how they know which objects are more complex than others. Is the process scientific? If not; how is ID a science?

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that "Specified Complexity" is an all-or-nothing property. According to ID, either something has it, or it does not. And, I have not seen any of them suggesting there are different levels.

The question is: How does one deduce "Specified Complexity" empirically? They have not been able to do that, thus far. But, arguing that point is less likely to make headway, than showing how their own examples of "Specified Complexity" can develop in similar ways to their examples of "unspecified complexity".

Templates can be used to make other templates, in fact DNA consists of both the positive and the negative template. Every copy will look very similar to the template it was made from, but there are also a few differences.
(snip)

Now bring it home! Tell us how such a system could arise without any intelligent intervention...

 

[Earthborn]

Now bring it home! Tell us how such a system could arise without any intelligent intervention...

And letting you get away with my Nobel Prize? No way, Wowsé!

Seriously, I don't think it can be done at this point and perhaps never. We just don't know that much about the chemical make-up and conditions of the early Earth to come up with a good step by step explanation of how something as fantastically complex (and at the same time mechanically "well designed") as DNA can arise. I don't even think we can say with any confidence that it wasn't intervening Aliens or some panspermic starter-kit falling to Earth.

The best we can do is say that it may have been a gradual step by step process, a sort of evolution itself. Obviously the only chemicals that would have stayed around would have been the ones that were stable enough to not be affected by the conditions or be relatively unstable but able to produce more of themselves. Anything else would have been selected against.

 

[Wowbagger]

We just don't know that much about the chemical make-up and conditions of the early Earth to come up with a good step by step explanation of how something as fantastically complex (and at the same time mechanically "well designed") as DNA can arise.

I wasn't talking about getting into the specifics. I was talking about explaining how it could be possible via analogy.

The "speck of dirt falling from the middle", in my analogy, is agnostic to the actual details.
(ETA: If pressed for such details, I could refer to some of the abiogenesis ideas undergoing study, for example the whole "RNA-World" type of theories, which resembles this analogy the closest, some of which are still viable.)

I don't even think we can say with any confidence that it wasn't intervening Aliens or some panspermic starter-kit falling to Earth.

The explanation, like the science, does not need to rule out all those ideas. It need only provide a framework for showing how your ideas, of natural emergence, could happen.

Ultimately, these ideas would need to be tested (and lots of abiogenesis ideas already have been, and are continuing to do so) But, for the purpose of this exercise, you don't need the actual process. A theoretical one will suffice, to work the analogy off of. (Perhaps one that is relatively well accepted, given the evidence currently available, would help.)

 

[Earthborn]

The "speck of dirt falling from the middle", in my analogy, is agnostic to the actual details.

It is also impossible. The speck of dirt can't fall from the middle. A snowflake is a three dimensional structure, a bit like a fluffy ball. Assuming the speck in the middle can't escape through a fourth dimension, it isn't going anywhere.

Have you ever even seen a snowflake under a microscope? I have, and let me tell you; it isn't the wonderfully structured complex crystal you seem to think it is. It is a hideously jumbled mess. (And I was really nice to them too! The ungrateful little &*%$flakes.) Here is a picture of what they tend to look like. Only under very specific conditions can you get those nice hexagonal ice crystals like this. Those don't have a speck of dirt in them as that would totally ruin their structure. A normal snowflake on the other hand looks more like a scrapheap after a tornado went over it: not a jumbojet in sight.

A theoretical one will suffice, to work the analogy off of.

I don't think science has progressed enough (and certainly not my knowledge of it) to even come up with that.