# Is there really information being conveyed within a cell? **URL:** \ **Category:** Conversation\ **Created:** [December 31, 2024, 4:02am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951 "2024-12-31T04:02:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2025, 1:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/561 "2025-03-20T01:10:38Z")

> [@theaz101](#): > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > > [@theaz101](#): > > > > > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > > > > > You are rejecting the scientific method altogether. > > > > > > Completely false. I think that science has done an amazing amount of work showing how the cell works. > > > > It does work by testing the predictions of mechanistic hypotheses, a practice you rejected above as “inconclusive.” > > I didn’t say that the testing of predictions was inconclusive. > [@theaz101](#): > > Anyways, predictions are fine, but ultimately inconclusive. Testing predictions is the gold standard of science. And before you pull out another straw man, all scientific conclusions are formally tentative. So all that stuff you praise about science is tentative too. That’s why it works so well. > [@theaz101](#): > > I’m simply saying that a successful prediction does not mean that the underlying hypothesis is true. Who has said otherwise? It merely means that we real scientists go on to test other predictions, something creationist pseudoscientists never do. It’s all about pretending that science is merely post-hoc explanations. ---

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 3:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/562 "2025-03-21T15:53:55Z")

> [@Rumraket](#): > > I am showing evidence that the genetic code and the translation system evolved. This isn’t something a reasonable person can just pretend like doesn’t exist. > > You’re not explaining why this evidence exists if, according to you, the genetic code and translation system didn’t evolve but was instead somehow created. Let’s take the first evidence you’ve pointed to, which is the sequence similarity between the peptidyl transferase center of 23S ribosomal RNA and ancestral proto-tRNAs. From this, you’ve asked why this similarity if thesei two different, and functionally distinct components of the translation system did not derive from the same ancestral RNA? Well the answer is quite simple and it is that some sequence and structural motif useful for tRNA function in the context of translation is also useful for PTC function in the same context. IOW, sequence similarity can as well be explained by design constraints than by direct historical/evolutionnary connection. ---

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 3:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/563 "2025-03-21T15:56:46Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > IOW, sequence similarity can as well be explained by design constraints than by direct historical/evolutionary connection. _What_ Design Constraints are those? Can you state them as a testable hypothesis? ---

**Author:** ![AnEvolvedPrimate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@AnEvolvedPrimate](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AnEvolvedPrimate)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 4:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/564 "2025-03-21T16:14:11Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > IOW, sequence similarity can as well be explained by design constraints Why would there be design constraints? Especially in light of @theaz101’s claim that the mechanism involved is supernatural. I’m not aware of any identified constraints that have been presented regarding alleged supernatural causes. ---

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 4:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/565 "2025-03-21T16:25:25Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > Let’s take the first evidence you’ve pointed to, which is the sequence similarity between the peptidyl transferase center of 23S ribosomal RNA and ancestral proto-tRNAs. From this, you’ve asked why this similarity if thesei two different, and functionally distinct components of the translation system did not derive from the same ancestral RNA? Well the answer is quite simple and it is that some sequence and structural motif useful for tRNA function in the context of translation is also useful for PTC function in the same context. IOW, sequence similarity can as well be explained by design constraints than by direct historical/evolutionnary connection. Sure, but the problem is you have no _a priori_ reason to expect these two radically distinct functions in translation to have such similar sequence and structural constraints. The PTC has been experimentally shown to be able to function as basically two copies of a single RNA polymer that dimerizes, and that functions as a catalyst that promotes the formation of peptide bonds between amino acids, whereas the tRNA molecule is essentially just scaffold-like structure which has an amino acid attached to it. It’s not at all clear why, for the tRNA molecule alone, there couldn’t be innumerable alternative possible replacements for the tRNA molecule in both structure and sequence. It seems to function as little more than a handle presenting an amino acid for the ribozyme to work on it. There just doesn’t seem to be any of these supposed sequence or structural constraints necessary for each component. Alternative [artificial ribozymes are known](https://www.cell.com/article/S1074-5521%2802%2900141-2/fulltext?utm_source=chatgpt.com) that catalyze peptide bond formation, and innumerable alternative structures seem possible to “hold” an amino acid in an exposed position where an enzyme or ribozyme could “work on it”. As such their observed similarity, since the claim that it is necessary does not seem to be based on anything, is better explained as the product of evolution from a common ancestor. _A posteriori_ it is therefore evidence favoring evolution. ---

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2025, 6:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/566 "2025-03-21T18:11:49Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > some sequence and structural motif useful for tRNA function in the context of translation is also useful for PTC function in the same context. IOW, sequence similarity can as well be explained by design constraints than by direct historical/evolutionnary connection. To repeat… > [@Giltil](#): > > As far as symbols are concerned, arbitrariness, at its core, is about a lack of inherent necessity in the connection between the symbol and what it represents. Well, there goes the genetic code as being arbitrary symbols. ---

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 11:30am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/567 "2025-03-23T11:30:39Z")

I’m not sure what is your point here. Is it that you see a contradiction between the two quotes of mine your are pointing to? If you think so, then you’re wrong. ---

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 3:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/568 "2025-03-23T15:34:55Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > I’m not sure what is your point here. Is it that you see a contradiction between the two quotes of mine your are pointing to? I see an obvious one. The genetic code is in no way arbitrary. There is a mountain of data showing that. ---

**Author:** ![theaz101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@theaz101](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/theaz101)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 3:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/569 "2025-03-23T15:35:01Z")

> [@RonSewell](#): > > > [@Giltil](#): > > > > As far as symbols are concerned, arbitrariness, at its core, is about a lack of inherent necessity in the connection between the symbol and what it represents. > > Well, there goes the genetic code as being arbitrary symbols. > [@Giltil](#): > > I’m not sure what is your point here. Is it that you see a contradiction between the two quotes of mine your are pointing to? If you think so, then you’re wrong. I think that what he (and others) is doing is using the non-arbitrariness of the translation process (decoding process) to declare that the Genetic code itself is non-arbitrary. In other words, the mapping is necessary (non-arbitrary) because translation carries out the mapping in a mechanical sense. This is completely invalid, of course, because a code (like ASCII) is only arbitrary when it is developed. It isn’t arbitrary when it is used. Also, they are ignoring the fact that the translation machinery itself was first produced by existing copies of the translation machinery - using the Genetic code. ---

> [@Rumraket](#): > > > [@theaz101](#): > > > > They are set arbitrarily, not used arbitrarily. > > The genetic code isn’t “set” arbitrarily either. It has demonstrable chemical and physical patterns to the “mapping” between amino acids and codons. The associations are not arbitrary or random at all. I’ve been using the meaning of arbitrary that is: > 1b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the [intrinsic](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic) nature of something. So, not random. The fact that there are chemical patterns to the mapping isn’t the same thing as those patterns requiring (necessitating) a particular mapping. I see the patterns as a result that the Genetic code was created and not random. > [@Rumraket](#): > > But I would still be fine calling it a code. It’s just that using that label for the system of translation doesn’t tell us how it came to exist. Our labels do not travel back in time and force the code to come into existence in a specific way. The code came to exist regardless of how we decide to categorize it. Your argument can go nowhere at all. You’re right, of course. Our labels did not create the code. The mappings of a codon to amino acid existed and was in use long before man had the ability to discover it (and create the labels of codon and amino acid). This is true for everything. We gave labels to the elements, but those labels didn’t force the elements to come into existence, either. ---

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 8:13pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/571 "2025-03-23T20:13:28Z")

> [@theaz101](#): > > I’ve been using the meaning of arbitrary that is: > > > 1b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the [intrinsic](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic) nature of something. In which case the genetic code isn’t arbitrary, because it isn’t based on “individual preference or convenience.” > [@theaz101](#): > > I see the patterns as a result that the Genetic code was created and not random. This is your assumption, then. Not something you have any evidence in support of. > [@theaz101](#): > > You’re right, of course. Our labels did not create the code. The mappings of a codon to amino acid existed and was in use long before man had the ability to discover it (and create the labels of codon and amino acid). > > This is true for everything. We gave labels to the elements, but those labels didn’t force the elements to come into existence, either. Thanks, yes. But I hope you can then see the problem with your argument here. If you decide to define the category “codes” as something that includes the premise that it was necessarily created by intelligent designers, and then you go on to put the genetic code into your “codes” category, have you then shown it was created by an intelligent designer? Of course not, that would simply be to assume the conclusion. ---

**Author:** ![theaz101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@theaz101](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/theaz101)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 8:13pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/572 "2025-03-23T20:13:38Z")

> [@Mercer](#): > > > [@theaz101](#): > > > > They are set arbitrarily, not used arbitrarily. > > What evidence suggests to you that they were set arbitrarily? As stated elsewhere, there is no chemical necessity for the mapping as shown by the example previously given. You can take some codons (not all) and simply rearrange the bases and get a different amino acid added to the peptide chain. > [@Mercer](#): > > > [@Rumraket](#): > > > > The genetic code isn’t “set” arbitrarily either. It has demonstrable chemical and physical patterns to the “mapping” between amino acids and codons. The associations are not arbitrary or random at all. > > It’s amazing how many times @theaz101 has repeated this objectively false claim. It is, however, an obvious prediction of the hypothesis that the system was designed. Chemical patterns do not necessitate the mapping and are no surprise if the mapping was chosen, not random. > [@Mercer](#): > > > [@theaz101](#): > > > > > [@Rumraket](#): > > > > > > Explain why! > > > > I said earlier that I believe a naturalistic origin of life has to be a “bottom-up” process vs the "all parts > > We know you say that, but that’s not an explanation. It’s just an _ex cathedra_ assertion. It’s a premise, not an explanation. > [@Mercer](#): > > > [@theaz101](#): > > > > If you’re going to use peptidyl transferase or other rRNA as evidence for RNA world, then you have to show how it can be produced and function without any involvement with DNA or proteins. > > No, we don’t. > > > [@theaz101](#): > > > > If you want to say that peptidyl transferase can catalyze the bond between amino acids without the help of proteins, you also have to show that it can perform that catalytic action without first being modified by proteins. Otherwise, it’s just a case of special pleading. > > No, we don’t have to show anything of the sort. These RNA relics were predicted by the RNA World hypothesis. Moreover, there’s been a lot of coevolution of peptidyl transferase and the proteins that frame it, so knowing about the stability of RNA, we would never expect the rRNA to be stable in the absence of framing proteins. > > Note that tRNA, another relic that is not framed, is very stable. I never said anything about framing. I said that the post-transcriptional modification includes bases being changed into non-standard bases by proteins. That wasn’t part of the prediction. > [@Mercer](#): > > So what would it do to your position if the RNA does have some catalytic activity by itself? Would you move the goalposts? I don’t deny that RNA has some catalytic activity. I’m saying that it hasn’t been shown that rRNA can perform it’s catalytic activity without being modified (not talking about framing) by proteins. And, it hasn’t been shown that rRNA can translate the Genetic code by itself. > [@Mercer](#): > > YOU have to explain why there are so many RNAs at the heart of translation, which you hypothesize was created all at once. > > 1. Why are there tRNAs when proteins are perfectly capable of binding to specific sequences? > > 2. Why is peptidyl transferase a ribozyme framed (a metaphor) by proteins, when ribozymes are generally poorer catalysts than proteins? I don’t have to explain any of that. I’m not the creator. [quote=“Mercer, post:526, topic:16951, full:true”] 3) How do you explain the nonarbitrary nature of the genetic code, other than repeating your false claim that it is arbitrary? [/quote] The decoding of a code is not arbitrary. The development of the code is what is arbitrary. > [@Mercer](#): > > And as a general recommendation, review the basics of catalysis, as you’re missing an important point that is relevant to understanding the evolution of RNA and protein catalysts: > > [14.7: Catalysis - Chemistry LibreTexts](https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Map%3A_A_Molecular_Approach_(Tro)/14%3A_Chemical_Kinetics/14.07%3A_Catalysis) > > The part you’re missing is covered in the first paragraph and first figure. That doesn’t tell me anything that I didn’t already know. What you haven’t even attempted to explain is why catalysis is relevant to this discussion. What statement have I made that is answered by “catalysis”? ---

**Author:** ![sfmatheson](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/sfmatheson/32/22811_2.png) [@sfmatheson](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/sfmatheson)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 8:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/573 "2025-03-23T20:14:14Z")

> [@theaz101](#): > > The fact that there are chemical patterns to the mapping isn’t the same thing as those patterns requiring (necessitating) a particular mapping. This comment, which you have repeated in various forms throughout this thread, is a big problem for your credibility. If I’m reading the thread right, you came close to an understanding of this when you (apparently) read the old piece by Venema. You seemed to get the concept of the stereochemical hypothesis, which is in fact a view that, to at least some extent, the “patterns” arose as necessary results of intrinsic molecular (stereochemical) realities. This hypothesis is old, and it’s clear, and to repeat mantra-like the claims that you make in this thread is to either announce that you haven’t read anything on the topic (that’s my hunch) or to unmask yourself as a dishonest apologist. I am certain that the scientists on this thread, when they repeatedly tell you that the code is not arbitrary, have read articles like this one… > **[Origin and Evolution of the Universal Genetic Code - PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28853922/)** > > The standard genetic code (SGC) is virtually universal among extant life forms. Although many deviations from the universal code exist, particularly in organelles and prokaryotes with small genomes, they are limited in scope and obviously secondary.... …which is an extensive review of the status of our understanding as of 2017.\* It seems to me that your knowledge is so shallow that you can’t resist spawning red herrings about riboswitches when discussing views of the evolution of the code that are decades old. It seems to me that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but that you are nevertheless happy to type assertions in a conversation with people who do. You’d be a lot better off telling the truth, for lots of reasons that an adult shouldn’t have to be told. A creator worth even infinitesimally small respect would not need lies about stereochemistry on the Hadean earth to earn that respect. I will always respect faith and those who find inspiration in Iron Age deities, but I will never understand (and never understood during my 30 years as an evangelical) why it’s not enough for SO many believers to confess a god big enough to create and sustain the cosmos we actually live in. \*The article is open access as a PDF, accessible for now via the “full text” link. ---

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 9:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/574 "2025-03-23T21:22:08Z")

> [@theaz101](#): > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > What evidence suggests to you that they were set arbitrarily? > > As stated elsewhere, there is no chemical necessity for the mapping as shown by the example previously given. So just wishful thinking. Try to understand that arbitrariness is a negative and therefore, requires a complete understanding of the evidence to maintain. > [@theaz101](#): > > You can take some codons (not all) and simply rearrange the bases and get a different amino acid added to the peptide chain. I know, but that has nothing to do with the question of arbitrariness. The fascinating thing is that this question has been addressed in great detail by real scientists testing hypotheses, but you seem to be reluctant to dive into the evidence they have produced. Are you going to explain your assertion that RNA switches have codons? > [@theaz101](#): > > Some amino acids are often bound to its codon within the riboswitch.. I have no idea what you meant by that. Since you asserted “some” and “often,” certainly you can point to multiple examples? > [@theaz101](#): > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > It’s amazing how many times @theaz101 has repeated this objectively false claim. It is, however, an obvious prediction of the hypothesis that the system was designed. > > Chemical patterns do not necessitate the mapping… Another goalpost move. We’re not referring to any vague notion of “chemical patterns.” This is reminiscent of IDcreationist dismissal of petabytes of sequence data as vague “similarity” instead of superimposable nested hierarchies. Please try looking at the evidence before making any sweeping claims. > [@theaz101](#): > > …and are no surprise if the mapping was chosen, not random. More word games. Can’t someone choose something randomly or nonrandomly? How can chosen and random be mutually exclusive? Please stop with the games; we disagree on arbitrary vs. contingent. You are asserting the former (an implicitly negative claim) with zero supporting evidence. We are pointing out that the evidence you are pathologically avoiding tells us that the mapping is not arbitrary, but was chosen by a contingent, incredibly recursive process. Evolution is constrained in a multitude of ways that no omnipotent, omniscient being ever could be. The excuse of “I’m not the creator” doesn’t cut it. > [@theaz101](#): > > It’s a premise, not an explanation. Then why would you offer it as a response to: > [@Rumraket](#): > > Explain why! ??? > [@theaz101](#): > > I never said anything about framing. I never claimed you did. I pointed out that the current framing (metaphorical) by ribosomal proteins would make most, possibly all, stability-enhancing structures in the ancestral rRNA unnecessary. If you know anything about the relative stabilities of RNA and protein, you’d know why that’s important. > [@theaz101](#): > > I said that the post-transcriptional modification includes bases being changed into non-standard bases by proteins. Which I say has nothing to do with the fulfillment of empirical predictions of the RNA World hypothesis, coupled with the falsification of multiple empirical predictions of your creation hypothesis. So, if the genetic code was arbitrarily chosen by God, do we expect any modifications? If the attachment of amino acids to particular tRNAs, and the enzymes that catalyze it, were specifically and arbitrarily designed by God, what should happen to any organism that lacks one of those specific, completely arbitrary (as you hypothesize) aminoacyltransferases? > [@theaz101](#): > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > So what would it do to your position if the RNA does have some catalytic activity by itself? Would you move the goalposts? > > I don’t deny that RNA has some catalytic activity. That would be another goalpost move, because you removed the context of the specific activity–peptidyl transferase. > [@theaz101](#): > > I’m saying that it hasn’t been shown that rRNA can perform it’s catalytic activity without being modified (not talking about framing) by proteins. I’m pointing out that you have no idea what has been shown or not shown, just word games. I think you’re afraid to look. Isn’t God speaking more through the evidence than what any IDcreationist rhetorician writes or says? > [@theaz101](#): > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > YOU have to explain why there are so many RNAs at the heart of translation, which you hypothesize was created all at once. > > > > 1. Why are there tRNAs when proteins are perfectly capable of binding to specific sequences? > > 2. Why is peptidyl transferase a ribozyme framed (a metaphor) by proteins, when ribozymes are generally poorer catalysts than proteins? > > I don’t have to explain any of that. I’m not the creator. You are moving the goalposts. You are explicitly claiming that this evidence tells you that this particular system was directly designed in detail by an omnipotent, omniscient being. > [@theaz101](#): > > The decoding of a code is not arbitrary. The development of the code is what is arbitrary. Why do you keep repeating this false claim? There’s no relevant distinction served by your goalpost move from “decoding” to “development” either. > [@theaz101](#): > > > [@Mercer](#): > > > > The part you’re missing is covered in the first paragraph and first figure. > > That doesn’t tell me anything that I didn’t already know. Coulda fooled me. > [@theaz101](#): > > What you haven’t even attempted to explain is why catalysis is relevant to this discussion. But I have. What is catalysis UNABLE to do? That’s what is relevant to understanding enzyme evolution, and you’ve shown no awareness of this. > [@sfmatheson](#): > > It seems to me that you don’t know what you’re talking about, but that you are nevertheless happy to type assertions in a conversation with people who do. And how doing so somehow serves anyone’s understanding and/or worship of the Christian God makes no sense. Doing so in service of one’s ego clearly does! > [@sfmatheson](#): > > …I will never understand (and never understood during my 30 years as an evangelical) why it’s not enough for SO many believers to confess a god big enough to create and sustain the cosmos we actually live in. Me neither. IDcreationism is just ridiculously bad theology, even putting the pseudoscience and mendacity aspects aside. It conceptually turns God into a tiny, cheapskate tinkerer more consistent with a minor Hindu god. ---

**Author:** ![AnEvolvedPrimate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@AnEvolvedPrimate](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AnEvolvedPrimate)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2025, 9:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/575 "2025-03-23T21:22:44Z")

> [@theaz101](#): > > I think that the fact that rRNA and tRNA are post-transcriptionally modified by proteins is better explained by the hypothesis that “all parts of the system were created at the same time”. > [@theaz101](#): > > I don’t have to explain any of that. I’m not the creator. Doesn’t seem like invoking a creator offers much of an explanation after all… ---

**Author:** ![theaz101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@theaz101](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/theaz101)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2025, 2:14am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/578 "2025-03-31T02:14:00Z")

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#): > > > [@theaz101](#): > > > > The base really doesn’t matter. The Genetic code is quaternary or base 4. > > > > If “naturally occurring information” is tree rings, then it isn’t digital information. > > I totally agree the base is irrelevant - **that is the point** I am making. > > AND that’s also why you are blowing smoke when you claim the genetic code is special because it is digital. I don’t understand your point at all. I’m not saying that the genetic code is special (relative to other codes) because it is digital, I’m saying that it is like other digital codes, and, like other digital codes, the product of an intelligent mind. > [@theaz101](#): > > I’m not sure which chemical reactions you’re talking about. Can you be more specific? > [@Dan\_Eastwood](#): > > ANY chemical reaction. > > But we can make this simpler: **Name a chemical reaction that requires intelligence to occur.** > > Which is a silly bit of rhetoric - no chemical reaction requires an intelligence - it just happens. Therefore … > > > The laws of chemistry act on atoms and molecules regardless of any intelligent interpretation. Given the proper ingredients and energy a chemical reaction WILL happen, no intelligence required. **It is irrelevant to impose the human concepts of Information to chemical reactions for the purpose of inferring the supernatural.** We are really talking past each other. I I’m not appealing to the supernatural as a cause of a chemical reaction, and I don’t think I’ve come close to suggesting that in this thread. I honestly don’t know where you got that idea. I’m only talking about the arranging or sequencing of DNA bases at the time that life originated. The sequence of the bases determines what the function of the functional rna/protein will be, but the function is carried out according to the laws of chemistry. I’m also saying that there is no law of chemistry or chemical necessity or chemical reaction which determines what the sequence of DNA bases must be. ---

**Author:** ![theaz101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@theaz101](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/theaz101)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2025, 2:14am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/579 "2025-03-31T02:14:09Z")

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#): > > > [@theaz101](#): > > > > What is the obvious and visible difference between the Genetic code and a code like ASCII? Something that everyone can plainly see or understand, like the difference between a white and black swan. > > Is that a serious question? > > ASCII is created on computers and requires human beings to enter it. > > The genetic code involves organic molecules and proceeds by unguided chemical processes. > > That a simple way to tell them apart. You’re using your **knowledge** that ASCII was designed to distinguish them, not an obvious (black and white) difference between what ASCII and the Genetic code do. i.e.: alternative groupings of elements (ones and zeros or the bases of DNA) to code for something else. And that’s the **only** thing I’m comparing. The means of processing, organic molecules or silicon and circuits, is irrelevant. In both cases, they are processed by unguided chemical or electronic processes. > [@Faizal\_Ali](#): > > > [@theaz101](#): > > > > You are basing your argument on a philosophic assumption: > > > > > Every intelligent being that can create a code requires the _genetic_ code to exist. > > > > You don’t have any scientific evidence to support this statement. > > Then kindly provide an observed example of an intelligent being that creates codes and which does not require the genetic code for its existence. > > Thanks in advance. Your philosophic assumption: > Every intelligent being that can create a code requires the _genetic_ code to exist. is the equivalent of “all swans are white”. It isn’t a scientific statement. > [@Faizal\_Ali](#): > > > [@theaz101](#): > > > > You don’t have any scientific evidence to support this statement. > > > > Also, I don’t think I’ve been shown any empirical evidence that the Genetic code originated through evolution. > > You have been provided evidence that the genetic code evolved. I’m not going to waste my time repeating it just so you can ignore it again, sorry. The examples that I’ve been shown supposedly show evolution of the Genetic code after it had originated. Not how it originally came to be. Sort of like comparing two airplanes, one with a two blade propeller and one with a three blade propeller and saying that it was evidence that the airplane evolved. ---

**Author:** ![theaz101](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@theaz101](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/theaz101)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2025, 2:14am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/580 "2025-03-31T02:14:16Z")

> [@Mercer](#): > > > [@theaz101](#): > > > > The paper that Venema is referring to is talking about riboswitches which (as far as I understand it) has an amino acid bound to an rna strand. > > No. Riboswitches are triggered by many different types of small molecules, not simply amino acids. Would it be too much to expect a Wikipedia-level dive? Venema refers to a previous blog post which refers to this paper: > **[RNA–Amino Acid Binding: A Stereochemical Era for the Genetic Code - Journal...](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00239-009-9270-1)** > > By combining crystallographic and NMR structural data for RNA-bound amino acids within riboswitches, aptamers, and RNPs, chemical principles governing specific RNA interaction with amino acids can be deduced. Such principles, which we summarize in a... Which states: > The apparent probability (_P_ ) that cognate triplets around these sites are unrelated to binding sites is ≅5.3 × 10−45 for codons overall, and _P_ ≅ 2.1 × 10−46 for cognate anticodons. Therefore, some triplets are unequivocally localized near their present amino acids. Accordingly, there was likely a stereochemical era during evolution of the genetic code, relying on chemical interactions between amino acids and the tertiary structures of RNA binding sites. > [@Mercer](#): > > > [@theaz101](#): > > > > Some amino acids are often bound to its codon within the riboswitch.. > > No, riboswitches do not have codons. Fine. The same sequence as the assigned codon. Venema, specifically on p. 190, is referring to many papers published before the time he wrote it; many more relevant to your claim have been published since then. He is explicitly referring to Meyer’s (and your) objectively false claim that the mapping (a metaphor) of amino acids to codons in translation, with no reference to riboswitches, is arbitrary. [/quote] First of all, I wouldn’t call the mapping a metaphor, that’s your term. Secondly, what the paper is showing doesn’t come close to a chemical necessity in mapping a codon to a particular amino-acid. The mapping is determined by the sequence of the transcribed and spliced genes (mature mRNA) that code for the components of the translation system. There is no chemical necessity for any specific sequence of DNA nucleotides. That’s why the Genetic code is arbitrary. ---

**Author:** ![appsandorgs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@appsandorgs](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/appsandorgs)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2025, 2:14am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/581 "2025-03-31T02:14:21Z")

Before this thread joins the silent everafter … perhaps someone should just mention the way that the gene system actually functions. The genetic code is physically established inside the living cell by the sequences of DNA that specify the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRS) … and for any of those sequences to serve that function, they must all exist in a simultaneous coordinated state. ---

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2025, 1:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951/582 "2025-03-31T13:17:44Z")

With @theaz101, let’s approach this with the scientific method instead of the shallow rhetorical method: You hypothesize that the genetic code was formulated arbitrarily and simultaneously. > [@appsandorgs](#): > > The genetic code is physically established inside the living cell by the sequences of DNA that specify the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRS) … That’s a crystal-clear empirical prediction of your hypothesis, not a fact. > [@appsandorgs](#): > > … and for _ **any** _ of those sequences to serve that function, they must _ **all** _ exist in a simultaneous coordinated state. _ **If** _ your hypothesis is correct, that must be true; more importantly, it must be true in _ **any** _ and _ **all** _ cases, as you clearly and confidently stated. IOW, a single, present-day exception is sufficient to falsify your hypothesis! So, how much money would you bet that there are no exceptions? [Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951.md?page=26) [Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/is-there-really-information-being-conveyed-within-a-cell/16951.md?page=28)