Can you elaborate on this point? I don’t understand it.
The stop codons do not code for amino acids, allowing proteins to end with any residue. The start codon does not, which requires a massive amount of machinery to modify the amino termini of proteins after synthesis.
It’s incredibly stupid, but that enormous difference between start and stop is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory.
Intelligently-designed translation would use a start codon that does not specify an amino acid, analogous to stop codons.
1 Like
Thanks, I see what you mean. If coding could start from any codon, there’d be no need of elaborate systems of post-translational modification of the N-terminus residue.
1 Like
Correct. That’s why the idea that translation even suggests ID makes no sense.
i think that we heard it before about the retina design. and yet now biologists think otherwise, and i think the same can be said for the RuBisCO enzyme.
Yes, but the retina has no internal control for good design as translation has.
Really? The blind spot is good design?
1 Like
“The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.”
None of that makes the blind spot into good design. You understand that you have a blind spot on both eyes, right?
1 Like
did this (blind spot) ever bother you? if the answer is “no” then i dont see bad design here.
You don’t see bad design in the blind spot. How’s that for irony?
People are some times run over in traffic accidents because the driver happens to momentarily look in a direction where a pedestrian or cyclist is in their blind spot. They just didn’t see them, and one of those reasons is the blind spot. That bothers me. Innumerable people get stuff(sand, insects, whatever) in their eyes every year, that could have been avoided because it happens to enter at the blind spot.
1 Like
any reference? even if its true remember that people may not be designed to drive in a car originally.
Dr. Swamidass
I would be curious to know what precisely you mean by this. How does one ‘design with evolution’?
3 Likes
Nice to see you here Paul Price!
1 Like
How does God perfectly design the history of Man when we make the choices, not He? That’s how He can design with Evolution, too.
Then why aren’t cephalopod eyes designed that way?
1 Like
maybe because its a cephalopod and thus need different design.
Maybe? Why would a cephalopod need a forward facing retina and not an inverted retina? If multiple designs are possible and species were created separately, then why wouldn’t some species who have a backbone also have a forward facing retina.
1 Like
see above- this “backward” stucture actually improve vision. unlike evolutionery prediction. so no one can know for sure why creature x has structure x. we can only guess.
Then why don’t cephalopods have this design?
2 Likes