That’s not the code. The code is the mapping between base triplets and amino acids.
No, he doesn’t. He says nothing about choice. That’s your addition. Further, I don’t understand his argument for why these numbers are optimal, and I find it hard to believe that you do. At any rate, it doesn’t support your claim of a conscious mind, “universal wave function collapse”, etc. Nor does this have anything whatsoever to do with nested hierarchy.
Why? There is no reason why filling different environments should produce a nested hierarchy. Note also that when we detect convergent evolution, that relies on there being a true phylogeny that is contradicted by the convergent features. Thus we know that flight is convergent in insects, birds, bats, and pterodactyls precisely because they occupy different spots in the phylogeny.
No, it can’t, or at least there is no reason to expect it to be so. And there is no reason to expect the “similar parts and features” that result from convergent evolution to resemble each other in detail; thus the wings of insects, birds, bats, and pterodactyls are quite different in structure, another reason to suppose convergence.
That model, even if it were correct, has no relevance to the number of Hox clusters. Whether it’s a possible scenario is thus also irrelevant.
Because what you say has nothing to do with Hox clusters. You refer to HRT, but Hox clusters are not regulatory sequences (e.g. enhancers and repressors); they’re linear sets of protein-coding genes. None of the irrelevant events or processes you describe has anything to do with duplicating or adding linears sets of protein-coding genes to a genome. The fact that you think so indicates that you have no clue what Hox clusters are.
And they generally are, as are phylogenies from different data sets. Though not perfectly congruent, they are similar enough to show common descent. Read Theobald more carefully.
What is this a quote from? You need to consistenly cite your quotes. What exactly are the taxa being talked about there? Some unknown persons unsupported opinion is not an argument.
I don’t believe you. You have cited things you haven’t read too many times before and have destroyed your credibility on that subject.
No, HGT doesn’t include HRT. I don’t even know what BGT is. But at any rate, we only know about HGT because there is a true phylogeny to compare it to.
This whole line of posts began because I asked you about the taxonomic distribution of Hox cluster number. You have never addressed that question, and it appears that one reason is that you can’t because you don’t know what Hox clusters are or how they’re distributed. Even if you manage to find an account to regurgitate to me, I doubt you are capable of understanding the bit you cut and paste. I have a certain degree of sympathy for your floundering, but it’s eroded by your stubborn and arrogant persistence. When you’re out of your depth, don’t just keep treading water; head for shore.
I’m fairly sure ChatGPT didn’t produce the following sentence, as it gets both the units of the cosmological constant wrong, and neglects to mention that it is a measure of dark energy density:
So he’s not even reading what ChatGPT is telling him particularly carefully, when he’s writing the bits he actually writes himself? Why aren’t I particularly surprised?
Patel argues that there are striking similarities between the genetic code and the mathematical framework used in quantum algorithms. Patel suggests that the genetic code may have evolved to take advantage of quantum coherence effects to optimize protein synthesis.
Patel points out that the genetic code consists of 64 codons (triplets of nucleotides) that encode for 20 amino acids, with some redundancy built in. This coding scheme allows for some tolerance to errors in DNA replication, while still maintaining the ability to accurately specify the correct amino acid sequence for protein synthesis. Similarly, quantum algorithms use quantum states to encode information in a way that allows for efficient computation with some tolerance to errors.
Patel proposes that the genetic code may have evolved to exploit quantum coherence effects in DNA replication and transcription, which could enhance the accuracy and efficiency of protein synthesis. Patel suggests that the genetic code may have emerged as a result of natural selection acting on quantum-mechanical properties of DNA and RNA molecules.
I have already explained how it does. I just showed you his argument, so now you need to explain how it does not support the argument that the genetic code emerges from quantum mechanical properties. The only argument against mine you made was that he did not use the word “chosen”. This is nonsense because he does refer to natural selection, which all you do is assume unguided random unguided mutations were the other mechanism at play.
Not true. HRT is the reason why we would expect that result from convergent evolution.
Again, Horizontal regulatory transfer leads to substantial innovation in one scoop and HRT involves the movement of genetic material between unicellular and/or multicellular organisms other than by the (“vertical”) transmission of DNA from parent to offspring (reproduction) and point mutations or gene duplication.
For instance, observations show that viruses were not only the probable precursors of the first cells but also helped shape and build the genomes of all species through HRT, which also produces nested hierarchies:
Four components shape the functional architecture of bacterial regulatory networks: 1. global transcription factors, which are responsible for responding to general signals and for module coordination; 2. strict, globally regulated genes, which are responsible for encoding products important for the basal machinery of the cell and are only governed by global transcription factors; 3. modular genes, which are modules devoted to particular cell functions; and 4. intermodular genes, which are responsible for integrating, at the promoter level, disparate physiological responses coming from different modules to achieve an integrated response. All these functional components form a nonpyramidal, matryoshka -like hierarchy exhibiting feedback. Regulatory Networks, Bacteria | Learn Science at Scitable (nature.com)
It is relevant because it describes the model of the mechanism or cause for how Hox genes could have arisen through a creation process, such as wave-funciton collapse. This process could have created the observed distribution of Hox genes through a number of creation exnihilo events. You even acknowledged that this was a possible scenario:
your “explanation”, if we applied it to genes, could explain any distribution at all and so explains nothing. Your idea has no expectations and makes no predictions. If bats had no Hox clusters at all while rats had seventeen, it would fit you ideas equally well.
My response to this was Stuart Hammeroff offered a predictive model for it as well. So we don’t have to worry about it being an unfalsifiable model.
He specifically said…
More precisely, the common descent hypothesis would have been falsified if the universal phylogenetic trees determined from the independent molecular and morphological evidence did not match with statistical significance.
We have observed this many times. So it is falsified by his estimate.
Yes I did :
Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses, and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species. 1. Liliana Dávalos et. al, “Understanding Phylogenetic Incongruence: Lessons from Phyllostomid Bats,” Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 87 (2012), 991–1024, doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00240.x.
Uh, wrong…
Many HGT events involve individual genes, but transfer of larger portions of genomes, in particular operons, is common as well, leading to the selfish operon hypothesis under which operons represent self-contained and hence readily transferable units of evolution (9, 10). Accordingly, evolution of bacterial metabolic networks has been modeled as a process of acquisition of operons encoding distinct metabolic pathways, complete with the cognate regulatory elements (11). In PNAS, Oren et al. (12) add an unexpected, potentially important facet to the already extensive evidence of the dominance of horizontal transfer of genetic material in microbial evolution by describing a phenomenon they denote horizontal regulatory transfer (HRT). Horizontal transfer beyond genes | PNAS
As opposed to the non-hypothetical scenario where it actually is known to within a few percent? Very well.
Okay. Well, it’s not known that well. It’s known to within a few percent. By contraposition, then, it stands to reason, that this “a precise measurement of 10¹²⁰” never happened.
Glad you can admit that this level is not achieved. Now, what was the reason to bring it up, then, if you can’t meaningfully use it in an argument? What are you saying?
Some day, maybe, we might know the value of a constant to a greater precision than we know it now. To very, very great precision, even, an entire order of magnitude more orders of magnitude of precision than we have for anything right now. Exciting, isn’t it!
Yeah, that’s cute. Now, how about we get back to reality in the meantime.
No, thank you. Allow me to quote instead what I am referring to, so you can quit being evasive about it and stay on topic:
You are of course welcome to weasel around the subject and then try and pull it back to something it never was in the hopes that I’d have forgotten, or would take the new bait into an area of study that is broadly foreign to me. I imagine past experience would have taught you that these are worthwhile tactics to attempt, disrespectful though they may be.
Well, if your argument is strictly about biology, then what is the point trying to root it in any physics, let alone fringe speculative quantum physics neither you nor the majority of your biologist interlocutors would understand enough of to meaningfully discuss? When your biology was failing, you would insist that fundamentally it is rooted in quantum mechanics as pretty much all natural processes would have to be. When I pointed out the intellectual failings of fine-tuning arguments, you replied that your discussion is of the scientific kind. Yet apparently your ideas of physics are fundamentally non-scientific, but somehow despite your insistence that they are what inform your biological ones, those are any better in this regard? Pick a lane, why don’t you. Either you want to be scientific, or you don’t. Either your argument is rooted in physics or it isn’t. You can’t have both when unchallenged, and then forfeit each the instant any pressure is applied to either.
Inverse square seconds is not a unit of energy. What ever this number is, it’s not “the value of dark energy”.
There exist no theoretical models producing an estimate of the cosmological constant’s value of 10¹²³ or higher. The cosmological constant has dimension. It is not a raw number. Earlier you said
which is not just not the same, but also not comparable. 10¹²³ has no dimension, and 10⁻²⁹ g/cm³ has dimension of mass per unit volume. One cannot even say one is greater or less than the other. Of course, that earlier statement of yours is also incorrect: The cosmological constant is an inverse area, not a mass density nor dimensionless, but at this point I’m beginning to doubt you - or, plausibly, the bot that you have compose your messages - even understand the difference, which should be frankly embarassing to anyone speaking on any matters of natural science. Yet, here we are.
10^-29 g/cm^3 is not expressed in units of energy per unit volume of space.
According to Wikipedia, the cosmological constant Λ is expressed in units of m-2, which differs both from both kg m-3 (g/cm^3) and from kg m-1 s-2 (energy per unit volume).
There is some sloppiness here, granted, but mass-energy equivalence is a thing and in a cosmological context I entirely expect omissions of a factor like c², especially when defining units in such a way as to render c = 1. The conversion here is correct, too. It’s just that neither quantity here named is the cosmological constant Λ, which is not in fact usually expressed in either energy or mass density. Now, vacuum energy density is, of course, which is what Λ is ultimately based on. And, in fact, vacuum energy density would be on the order of 10⁻²⁹ (c²) g / cm³. The 10¹²⁰ is the order of magnitude of the ratio ratio of predicted (from QFT) and observed vacuum energy. But neither is what @Meerkat_SK5’s bot was saying, and @Meerkat_SK5 themselves are evidently either not competent or not diligent enough to tell even most obvious mistakes like this before blindly pasting their replies.
First, that isn’t a model, just a buzzword. You have no idea how a “wave-function collapse” could result in new DNA sequences, much less identical ones in separate incidents. Second, it isn’t any sort of prediction, because it allows for anything to happen. Your “explanation” is equivalent to just saying “whatever”.
No, that’s your inability to read for comprehension. An explanation that predicts anything predicts nothing.
There was no predictive model.
That’s you quote-mining in the most transparent way possible, by bolding one phrase but leaving in the qualifier that you didn’t notice. The key phrase here is “with statistical significance”, i.e. a much greater degree of match than predicted by chance. Which is what we see.
There is no evidence that you did.
Quoting another source you don’t understand and have probably not read. I feel no need to respond.
I’m a biologist, not a physicist, but judging by the responses of others here, you know as much about quantum physics as you do about biology. None of that is relevant to Hox clusters, and you still have shown no awareness of what they are, much less how they are distributed or what caused that distribution.
I make no attempt to address the Orch-OR model. I merely point out that it’s irrelevant to the topic I’m asking you about.
One problem with this is that ChatGPT has a tendency to ‘hallucinate’ citations – create realistic-sounding citations that don’t in fact exist. I do not know how much of a detriment this will be over @Meerkat_SK5’s, somewhat lax, citation regime, but would highly doubt if it would be an improvement.
But you’d probably have to spend at least some time checking to see if the citation exists, as I can’t absolutely guarantee that all ChatGPT citations are hallucinated (and it may well depend on the field and/or issue that you’re seeking citations on).
