So it’s simply God-of-the-gaps.
5 Likes
If you don’t think your belief is supported by scientific evidence, what do you think does support it?
That is categorically false, and strongly suggests that your beliefs are not just held in the absence of scientific evidence, but out of ignorance of scientific evidence that exists and is readily accessible.
6 Likes
This does not become more true, or less arbitrary, with repetition.
Given that DNA is and behaves like a chemical molecule, and the expression of protein is driven entirely by biochemical processes which are not incidental, what is the end game to this primary and secondary distinction you are so bent on? What is the conjured ghost in the machine?
Sure, if you consider the adaptive radiation of, say, all tetrapod species from lobe-finned fish to be small changes to existing organisms.
3 Likes
Let x be the nature of peptidyl transferase. How does it imply a Designer? More accurately, how do IDcreationists, in particular you, infer a Designer from that?
4 Likes
I’d be very interested in hearing a serious attempt at an answer to that question. We will not get any.
1 Like
Please bear in mind that Theaz101 is entitled to his (?) beliefs. He has been open about what those beliefs are, and that ID isn’t making a scientific claim. If all those who believe in ID were so honest, there wouldn’t be much to argue about.
3 Likes
While ignoring most of the relevant evidence, deliberately misrepresenting some of the most important evidence regarding alleged gaps, and falsely claiming that IDcreationists and evolutionary biologists are interpreting the same evidence in different ways.
1 Like
True, and I give @theaz101 full credit for that. Nonetheless, I think the question of whether one decides if one’s beliefs are true beliefs, and if so how, could lead to an interesting and productive discussion.
1 Like
True. My problem with him is that he also maintains that science isn’t making a scientific claim.
1 Like
Abstraction is the core of a genuine code. The efficacy of the code is the degree to which it is arbitrary. Very few codes are entirely arbitrary.
Take this code that we all agree is genuine:
Confirm Your Identity
We’ll send a verification code to make sure it’s you
Text/SMS Code to *********
Email code to co***@***.comWhy do we agree that this a code? What is its essence?
Why do you think that this is a code in the same sense as the Genetic code? (codon sequence → specific amino acid). And why do you think your example is abstract? How do you decode your code?
You are equivocating on the use of the word code.
The Genetic code is a true code in the same sense as Morse code or a computer code like ASCII). Arrangements of a set of “elements” (dots/dashes, ones/zeros, nucleotide bases) code for different outputs. It is abstract because there is no chemical requirement that a certain codon code for a specific amino acid, just as there is no electrical requirement that a certain set of ones and zeros code for a specific letter or other character in ASCII (or any other code set).
I’m not following the distinction. Without chemistry you don’t have folding or function (or even a sequence).
Like I said earlier, this is really just Crick’s Sequence Hypothesis. Folding and shape is determined by sequence. In translation, chemistry acts on sequence.
And here. Why it is meaningful to talk about changing the code or machinery? The only meaningful “encoding” for codon sequences are the laws of chemistry, and we can’t change chemistry.
Earlier in the thread, people were pointing to the machinery of the translation system to account for the Genetic code, since the code is translated mechanically. What I was saying is that if you want to change the Genetic code (change which amino acid corresponds to a particular codon), you would have to change the sequence of the relevant machinery. Specifically, the parts that recognize the codon sequence.
But function is a result of shape, especially the shape and chemistry of any binding sites…
Right. DNA sequence → RNA sequence → Amino acid sequence → fold (shape)
→ function.
I know that is extremely simplified. For example, it leaves out mRNA splicing / alternative sequencing.
… and there can be billions of different sequences that produce the same shape and hence the same function.
I’m not claiming that there is only one DNA sequence for a given protein.
Meanwhile, prions show that the same sequence can have different functions depending on what shape that sequence is folded into.
Sure. In the same sense as the brakes on my car will “function” differently if the mechanic puts the parts on incorrectly.
The shape(s) a protein adopts are the result of chemical bonds between the amino-acids at different points in the sequence, so it more appropriate to say that chemistry is primary, shape is secondary and sequence is tertiary.
It’s the sequence that determines which amino acids are present at those different points in the sequence.
You’re also missing that RNA can also provide functionality with a completely different type of sequence.
I’m not missing it at all It’s still sequence based, though.
Does “information” imply a designer?
When you are talking about digital information that is functional, then yes.
I’m a biochemist, and I have no idea what you meant by “Turning the codon into the corresponding amino acid”. Why would there have ever been such a reaction(s) if we are thinking about the evolution of this mechanism, regardless of whether you accept evolution or not? I’m talking chemistry only.
The statement deals with whether the Genetic code is abstract or not. If the codon went through a reaction that produced a particular amino acid, then the code wouldn’t be abstract (and it wouldn’t be a code), it would just be “chemistry”.
how do you explain the nature of peptidyl transferase, the enzyme that catalyzes the formation of peptide bonds in all of your proteins?
The peptidyl transferase is the part of the ribosome that joins the amino acids together as the amino acid polymer is being formed.
My question is about the nature of it, not what it does. You wrote:
Asking about its “nature” isn’t very helpful. What do you mean by “nature”?
Helpful? Argumentative?
Or are you looking for the fact that it’s a ribozyme?
The last reason that I’ll mention is that amino-acyl tRNA synthetases are produced like all other proteins…
So my question is, since you very clearly think ^that^ was an important point to mention, is peptidyl transferase “produced like all other proteins”? It’s kinda important.
No, it’s produced quite differently than proteins, as I’m sure you know. But, it’s still based on DNA sequence
It’s far too simple, as others have pointed out. You have to go much deeper to see the complexity, which is the kind of complexity we expect from a relentlessly iterative process that is incapable of true redesign.
Yet you can’t explain how the iterative process even began.
I’m more interested in what you think is important about amino-acyl tRNA synthetases. Please answer two questions:
- What does catalysis do, chemically?
- What can’t catalysis do, chemically?
The importance of amino-acyl tRNA synthetases is that they were given (earlier in the thread) as an example of why and how the Genetic code is a natural code and doesn’t require a designer or intelligence to produce.
Not sure what the questions about catalysis (acceleration of a chemical reaction) has to do with the topic.
I am going to jump in here looking at the cell from an entropy standpoint. The processes happening inside the cell decreases entropy inside the cell but increases entropy in the rest of the universe, so information is being transferred from the cell to the outside world.
Which is just what happens. So exactly what are you misunderstanding?
3 Likes
So are you:
Morse and ASCII are both means of encoding text for transmission, receipt and decoding into text again. There is no equivalent of decoding in genetics: the sequences of proteins in amino-acids are not converted back to RNA or DNA sequences. So the generic code is not a code in the same sense as Morse, ASCII etc.
There are other differences too, but this one is enough to refute your argument.
2 Likes
No-one is talking about digital information. DNA isn’t digital.
The codon does go through a reaction, or rather a series of reactions. The codon reacts with the tRNA, which reacts with the amino-acid, which reacts with the transferase, etc. It is chemistry.
Nor can you. So that’s not a problem.
4 Likes
Assuming for the sake of argument that genetic information is digital / functional, how does that imply a designer?
2 Likes
DNA is not digital information, nor is it an abstraction, but >if it were<, it would stand as a counter example.
DNA does not imply a designer, therefore the statement that digital information implies a designer must be false.
2 Likes
- Why?
1 Like