Information created accidentally, without design

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 11, 2013

Darwinism, Design inference, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Absolutely no one did this stuff, according to sources, which just shows how silly the idea is that intelligence is needed to create information.

Darwinism can explain it all quite easily. Natural selection acted on random mutation causing certain trees to die. End of story.

Hat tip: The Intelligent Design Facebook group, and especially Timothy Kershner and Junior D. Eskelsen

Comments

@ ericB See the thread linked to in my previous comment. Upright Biped had sufficient self-confidence in his argument to mount a defence at TSZ. See here for instance.Alan Fox_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

I know from direct experience with you that these texts only provide you fodder to repeat your unsupported assertions over and over again – always without any detail to support those assertions. Frankly, that is your problem, not mine. I no longer have time for it.
As you didn't give a link, itook a stroll down memory lane and, though didn't find the exact text you reproduce above, I did come across an inordinate amount of repetitive discussion. The main repetitive element was the regularity with which your interlocutors were unimpressed with your argument. The Upright Biped thread at UD. Yes, it all seems to have been done to death!Alan Fox_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Apparently, Alan, you are unaware that the semiotic translation system and what it implies are not the sole domain of ID supporters. It is already an expanding and contentious field in the scientific community.
I'm perfectly aware that semiotics is a field of study, William, which is why I said '“Semiotics” is a field of study.' in comment #348.Alan Fox_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

"Plenty of evidence for a designer"? Ha, I lost it at that one. I always know I can come here for a good laugh.AVS_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, thanks for info @347. I wish Elizabeth B Liddle was still participating. @155 she asked:
… And which of the information-transfers involved is, in your view “symbolic”, and why?
Borrowing from your Daniel Chandler quotation:
Since the meaning of a sign depends on the code within which it is situated, codes provide a framework within which signs make sense. Indeed, we cannot grant something the status of a sign if it does not function within a code.
As I've maintained... No Translation = Not Symbolic or No Encoding and No Decoding = Not Symbolic Sadly, I think these words may be invisible to Alan Fox. fnordericB_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
I, personally, find nothing is added if you bring in some celestial prime mover,...
Again Alan exposes his ignorance. saying something was designed is a game changer, Alan. Even Dawkins recognizes that simple fact. So what is your issue? It must be ignorance.
... because that is just additional speculation for which there is no evidence at all.
And more ignorance. There is plenty of evidence for a designer Alan. What YOU don't have is any positive evidence for YOUR position. And I see that upsets you so much that you are forced to lie and act like a little baby. Nice job. Alan Fox:
But supernatural explanations that people have made up for comfort and solace don’t work for me.
1- ID does NOT requyire the supernatural 2- Alan just makes up stories that offer comfort and solace to himJoe_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

Well, if you think so, William. I still wonder, if so much devastation could be inflicted on the evil twins of atheism, materialism (and the other twin, Darwinism) why this concept of semiotics hasn’t begun to get some traction with ID proponents. Why not a paper published, for instance?
From Wikipedia:
Biosemiotics (from the Greek bios meaning "life" and semeion meaning "sign") is a growing field of semiotics and biology that studies the production and interpretation of signs and codes[1] in the biological realm. Biosemiotics attempts to integrate the findings of biology and semiotics and proposes a paradigmatic shift in the scientific view of life, demonstrating that semiosis (sign process, including meaning and interpretation) is one of its immanent and intrinsic features. The term "biosemiotic" was first used by Friedrich S. Rothschild in 1962, but Thomas Sebeok and Thure von Uexküll have done much to popularize the term and field.[2] The field, which challenges normative views of biology, is generally divided between theoretical and applied biosemiotics.
Apparently, Alan, you are unaware that the semiotic translation system and what it implies are not the sole domain of ID supporters. It is already an expanding and contentious field in the scientific community. Your denials that it is proper to see this process as semiotic in nature is in contradiction to an entire field of scientific research. Darwinist idealogues like you are left scrambling trying to find some way of explaining away what is an obvious case of semiotics, for which there is no feasable Darwinistic explanation. Such irreducibly complex symbol (sign) and interpretation systems require intention and intelligence to set up and organize.William J Murray_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

UB to Alan Fox: (Nov2012)
“life and semiosis are coextensive” >>Professor Emeritus Thomas Sebeok, Indiana University ... “the basic unit of life is the sign, not the molecule” >> Professor Emeritus Jesper Hoffmeyer, Institute of Biology, University of Copenhagen ... “life is matter controlled by symbols” >> Professor Emeritus of Physics, Howard Pattee, New York State University ... “semiosis not only is a fact of life but is ‘the’ fact that allowed life to emerge from inanimate matter” >> Marcello Barbieri, Department of Morphology and Embryology, University of Ferrarra ... “I think the attempt to link semiosis to protein synthesis just fails utterly” >> Alan Fox
Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Alan, Given your responses, it is somewhat understandable why you have such a low opinion of philosophy in the face of empiricism. But you truly torture both. Perhaps a little more interest in physical details and rational thought would save you from the specter of arguing with certainty that a thing is not semiotic, while simultaneously asking what makes a thing semiotic. Or, saying out of one side of your mouth that the origin of life is too distant and mysterious for us to be certain of anything, while saying out of the other side of your mouth that it was certainty not the result of design. Or, professing a love of empirical detail, while simultaneously denying material facts.
Alan: ...there is no operational definition of Upright Biped’s “semiotic system”
Neither empiricism nor philosophy can help you if allow yourself to be patently dishonest. You knew this comment was untrue the very moment you typed it out. I have provided the details of a semiotic system at the material level. You have participated in those discussions. The material conditions required to confirm a semiotic system are:
a) an arrangement of matter to evoke an effect within a system, where the arrangement is physicochemically-arbitrary to the effect it evokes. b) an arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the first arrangement and the effect it evokes. c) the preservation of the physicochemically-arbitrary relationship between the first arrangement and its effect d) the production of the unambiguous function that pervades the animate kingdom
I have also provided the argument in a single paragraph:
In a material universe, it is not possible to transfer any form of recorded information into a material effect without using an arrangement of matter (or energy) as an information-bearing medium. If that is true, then other material necessities must follow. Firstly, such a medium must evoke an effect within a system capable of producing that effect. Universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. Secondly, if a medium contains information as a consequence of its arrangement, then that arrangement must be physically arbitrary to the effect it evokes. Again, universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. And thirdly, if an arrangement of matter requires a system to produce an effect, and if that arrangement is arbitrary to the effect it evokes, then the system itself must contain a second arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the arrangement of the medium and its effect. Once again, universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. If each of these things are true, then in order to transfer and translate any form of recorded information, the process fundamentally requires two arrangements of matter operating as an irreducible core within the system. And because Darwinian evolution requires the transfer and translation of recorded information in order to exist itself, it cannot be the source of this system. Given these observations, a mechanism capable of establishing this semiotic state is necessary prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution and information-based organization.
I know from direct experience with you that these texts only provide you fodder to repeat your unsupported assertions over and over again - always without any detail to support those assertions. Frankly, that is your problem, not mine. I no longer have time for it.Upright BiPed_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Thank you for your comment, KF. However, I think you are committing the fallacy of begging the question. "Semiotics" is a field of study. But UB is going further by claiming there is a set of things he is calling "semiotic" that includes language and protein synthesis. To further this claim, he needs to define "semiotic" in this context of deciding whether something is semiotic or not. If he has done so successfully, I'd be interested to see this operational definition.Alan Fox_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

F/N: The obfuscation continues apace. Backed up by obtuseness that will not accept that prong height can be and is used for coding, or that tapes are a handy technology for string based data structures used in machine code based numerical control of machines that physically implement algorithms. (One wonders how much machine code level experience with info processing systems the would-be objectors have, and how much willingness to listen to what those with such experience have to say.) Dictionary.com on semiotics:
se·mi·ot·ics [see-mee-ot-iks, sem-ee-, see-mahy-] Show IPA noun ( used with a singular verb ) 1. the study of signs and symbols as elements of communicative behavior; the analysis of systems of communication, as language, gestures, or clothing. 2.a general theory of signs and symbolism, usually divided into the branches of pragmatics, semantics, and syntactics.
Where also, Daniel Chandler informs us:
The concept of the 'code' is fundamental in semiotics. Whilst Saussure dealt only with the overall code of language, he did of course stress that signs are not meaningful in isolation, but only when they are interpreted in relation to each other. It was another linguistic structuralist, Roman Jakobson, who emphasized that the production and interpretation of texts depends upon the existence of codes or conventions for communication (Jakobson 1971). Since the meaning of a sign depends on the code within which it is situated, codes provide a framework within which signs make sense. Indeed, we cannot grant something the status of a sign if it does not function within a code. Furthermore, if the relationship between a signifier and its signified is relatively arbitrary, then it is clear that interpreting the conventional meaning of signs requires familiarity with appropriate sets of conventions. Reading a text involves relating it to relevant 'codes'. Even an indexical and iconic sign such as a photograph involves a translation from three dimensions into two, and anthropologists have often reported the initial difficulties experienced by people in primal tribes in making sense of photographs and films (Deregowski 1980), whilst historians note that even in recent times the first instant snapshots confounded Western viewers because they were not accustomed to arrested images of transient movements and needed to go through a process of cultural habituation or training (Gombrich 1982, 100, 273). As Elizabeth Chaplin puts it, 'photography introduced a new way of seeing which had to be learned before it was rendered invisible' (Chaplin 1994, 179). What human beings see does not resemble a sequence of rectangular frames, and camerawork and editing conventions are not direct replications of the way in which we see the everyday world.
In this light, we can find rich stimulation for reflecting on the discovered reality of codes used in cells to make proteins, the workhorse molecules of life. And, for now, I will simply highlight that the contrivances and conventions implied by the marvellous functionally specific organisation in the cell are telling us something. Something amplified by the additional factor of an organised von Neumann self replicating facility that puts us in a chicken-egg loop on steroids. KFkairosfocus_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

I’m asking if there is any coherent scenario that could be suggested even as a hypothesis in which it would make sense for a rational person to conclude that unguided chemicals, “being made of matter [and energy] following physical law”, would undertake to build a translation system. Keep in mind this limitation. “It is all a matter of physical and chemical interactions” so the explanation must be driven only by such interactions.
I am sure there is. Life did not exist on Earth before it was cool enough for liquid water to be present and now life exists on Earth in great profusion. Unfortunately, there is no full record of events over the billion or so year window from the cooling to the first direct evidence of living organisms. So we are free to speculate. I, personally, find nothing is added if you bring in some celestial prime mover, because that is just additional speculation for which there is no evidence at all. Of course, we may, to borrow an analogy to whom I am not sure it should be attributed, be like ants on the side-walk a yard from the Empire State Building and unaware of its existence. I was persuaded by the late Robert Shapiro that answers to life's origin may lie beyond Earth and I recommend his book "Planetary Dreams". And to repeat, I am sure there is an explanation for life on Earth. We just don't know what it is yet and maybe never will. Maybe, like ants on the sidewalk, we are not capable of seeing or understanding those explanations. But supernatural explanations that people have made up for comfort and solace don't work for me.Alan Fox_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT}

Ditto @ ericB. Let's have a clear definition of "semiotic" that does what is claimed! That is it can bracket protein synthesis with language and exclude everything else. Without a clear definition , I don't see where the argument progresses. Also remember, nonetheless, I will allow for the sake of argument that protein synthesis can be described as semiotic. So what?Alan Fox_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

Ah. I see the question I posed has forced you to use a parachute. So when you repeatedly deny that the genetic system is semiotic, you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
Not exactly. I pretty much have no idea what you are talking about, when apparently suggesting there are two sets of things, those that are semiotic and those that are not.
The bottom line here is that a system being made of matter following physical law has nothing whatsoever to do with it being semiotic. As far as the conditions required for semiosis, those conditions have been provided to you in material detail.
I don't recall suggesting that "semiotics" involved events that violated the properties of the known universe, mainly because there is no operational definition of Upright Biped's "semiotic system. Had such an operational definition been provided, I am sure it should be a simple matter to cut-&-paste or link to it.Alan Fox_{August 15, 2013
August
08
Aug
15
15
2013
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox @329 (but emphasis mine):
But I suspect you are asking about the origin of life rather than its subsequent evolvability. Can’t help you there. There are lots of ideas based on little evidence so I don’t currently have any idea how life got started on Earth.
It's OK if there is little evidence, since the bar on this exercise is set low. I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking if there is any coherent scenario that could be suggested even as a hypothesis in which it would make sense for a rational person to conclude that unguided chemicals, "being made of matter following physical law", would undertake to build a translation system. Keep in mind this limitation. "It is all a matter of physical and chemical interactions" so the explanation must be driven only by such interactions. SO, if there really are "lots of ideas", let's hear one or two or three. The goal is not proof. It is to see if anyone can even propose something that makes coherent sense, given what we already know about how unguided chemicals behave. Of course, if no one can even think of a coherent scenario that could be described clearly and yet hold water... The bar is set low. Please have a go at it. No proof required. Just a clear and coherent scenario.ericB_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Re: Alan Fox, Upright BiPed nails the relevant point.
The bottom line here is that a system being made of matter following physical law has nothing whatsoever to do with it being semiotic.
Exactly, as would be necessary for any clear thinking materialist to acknowledge (or else concede that semiotics does not exist). Therefore... Alan Fox @163
DNA’s relationship to protein is so obviously physico-chemical, ...
Irrelevant.
... it is hard to comprehend the suggestion of symbolism.
Not to everyone else who talks about codes, codons, decoding, translation, etc. and understands the meaning of a code. Alan Fox @188
All processes, DNA replication, RNA transcription and protein synthesis are biochemical.
Irrelevant.
And you can call the Genetic code a code if you like but is does not involve symbols.
When stripped of irrelevancies, this becomes a repeated but empty assertion without a justification. Alan Fox @189
It [translation of mRNA to protein] is purely biochemical.
Irrelevant.
Except that tranlation of mRNA to protein does not involve symbolism.
When stripped of irrelevancies, this becomes a repeated but empty assertion without a justification. Alan Fox @301
It is all a matter of physical and chemical interactions.
Irrelevant.
Chemistry or semiotics?
False dilemma based on an irrelevant observation. Alan Fox @317
DNA, RNA, ribosomes, proteins are molecules. Computers are made of molecules. ...
Irrelevant.
... Molecules are not symbols.
When stripped of irrelevancies, this becomes yet another empty assertion without a justification. Alan Fox @322
But what is going on (in the cell, when DNA is being replicated, transcribed into mRNA, when proteins are being synthesized) is chemistry, ...
Irrelevant.
... not semiotics.
When stripped of irrelevancies, this becomes a repeated but empty assertion without a justification.ericB_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT}

What is the operational definition of “semiotic”?;
Ah. I see the question I posed has forced you to use a parachute. So when you repeatedly deny that the genetic system is semiotic, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. The bottom line here is that a system being made of matter following physical law has nothing whatsoever to do with it being semiotic. As far as the conditions required for semiosis, those conditions have been provided to you in material detail.Upright BiPed_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
On the other hand, I already asked, assuming I’m wrong, so what? Where does it get you?
It gets us to design. And that gets us to something beyond your BS "emergence". It gets us to intention and purpose. IOW Alan, it gets us to reality. And that is the only place science should be.Joe_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
All systems, in my view, that exist in this universe, emerge from the properties of particles and energy.
Unfortunately for Alan support for that won't be found in any peer-reviewed journal.
What is the operational definition of “semiotic”?
When all else fails act like a child. Nice job Alan.Joe_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

The arguments you (Pand UB before you) have made about the code and translation system are utterly devastating to Darwinism and extremely problematic for atheism/materialism.
Well, if you think so, William. I still wonder, if so much devastation could be inflicted on the evil twins of atheism, materialism (and the other twin, Darwinism) why this concept of semiotics hasn't begun to get some traction with ID proponents. Why not a paper published, for instance?Alan Fox_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

So even Alan Fox’s sources do not agree with Alan Fox’s denial of the reality of the cell’s translation process of decoding information via a genetic code.
ericB, I'm not denying any reality about the processes that occur in the cell. I suggest the conflation with semiotics is in error. On the other hand, I already asked, assuming I'm wrong, so what? Where does it get you?Alan Fox_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Perhaps you can give us an example of a system you see as genuinely semiotic that doesn’t consist of molecules following physical law.
All systems, in my view, that exist in this universe, emerge from the properties of particles and energy. Whilst physical laws are descriptive and not proscriptive, exceptions have not yet been found. Assuming we have an operational definition of what properties are involved for a system to be "semiotic", then we could presumably examine any system to decide whether it was "semiotic" by our operational definition. So the burden is on those who claim to identify a set of semiotic systems or things to explain what those criteria are. What is the operational definition of "semiotic"?Alan Fox_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

ericB, The arguments you (Pand UB before you) have made about the code and translation system are utterly devastating to Darwinism and extremely problematic for atheism/materialism. Only those willfully in denial can cling to the bare possibility that somehow these chemicals just happened to produce such a fantastic encoding and translation system. It takes blind faith to believe in such a chance occurrence than it takes to believe that there is an intelligent designer behind it.William J Murray_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox (not Allen, my apologies) undermines his own position by pointing @329 to an article that repeatedly says exactly what he steadfastly denies and avoids saying.
Nirenberg and Matthaei’s classic experiment in 1961 led the way in elucidating the codon to residue correspondence in DNA.
"elucidating the codon to residue correspondence"? Alan, it seems that you cannot bring yourself even to clearly state that this was a key experiment in breaking the genetic code. This "elucidating" effort was necessary precisely because there is no inherent chemical obligation for any particular "codon to residue correspondence". In fact, some species use a different "codon to residue correspondence", i.e. a different genetic code. That is what makes it a code. The particular "codon to residue correspondence" is not inherent or required by chemical laws. It is established per species as a convention that must be elucidated to be known. Excerpts from the article Alan Fox pointed to (emphasis mine):
The Nirenberg and Matthaei experiment was a scientific experiment performed on May 15, 1961, by Marshall W. Nirenberg and his post doctoral fellow, Heinrich J. Matthaei. The experiment cracked the genetic code by using nucleic acid homopolymers to translate specific amino acids. ... This experiment cracked the first codon of the genetic code ... Background ... In the 1960s, one main DNA mystery scientists needed to figure out was in transcription how many bases would be in each code word, or codon. ... Thus, they concluded that the genetic code is a triplet code because it did not cause a frameshift in the reading frame. ... Marshall Nirenberg and Johann Matthaei both longed to understand how information gets transmitted from DNA to protein. At this time there was a race to crack the code of the DNA language. ... Experimental Work ... Therefore, polyU coded for polyphenylalanine, consistent with UUU coding for phenylalanine. ... Using the three-letter poly-U experiment as a model, the research team discovered that AAA (three adenosines) was the code word or "codon" for the amino acid lysine, and CCC (three cytosines) was the code word for proline. ... Reception and Legacy ... In 1961, when they announced their methods for decoding the relationship of mRNA to amino acids, there was still a lot of experimentation required before the entire code was deciphered. ... This development sped up the process of assigning code words to amino acids. By 1966, Nirenberg announced that he had deciphered the sixty-four RNA codons for all twenty amino acids. For his ground-breaking work on the genetic code, Nirenberg was awarded the 1968 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. ...
So even Alan Fox's sources do not agree with Alan Fox's denial of the reality of the cell's translation process of decoding information via a genetic code.ericB_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

DNA, RNA, ribosomes, proteins are molecules. Computers are made of molecules. Molecules are not symbols. ... It’s molecules we have here!
Alan, you seem to have landed on the fanciful objection that becuase the genetic translation system is made of molecules (i.e. matter) following physical law, it cannot possibly be semiotic. At the same time, you seem to also agree that there are systems that are genuinely semiotic. I am wondering how well you've thought this through. Perhaps you can give us an example of a system you see as genuinely semiotic that doesn't consist of molecules following physical law. If you are unable to do so, then your key objection throughout the entire thread turns out to be rather silly, doesn't it?Upright BiPed_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox:
Nobody is suggesting that DNA does not carry the bulk of information necessary for cells to grow and reproduce. Wanting to categorize it with semiotics and computers is an error.
What a jerk! No one WANTS to categorize it that way- it IS that way. Look Alan just because you cannot support your claims doesn't mean there is some sort of conspiracy going on.Joe_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

Alan:
Indeed, the interior of a cell is not by any stretch of the imagination like a molecule-sized factory floor.
Again the experts refute Alan.
Cellular activity involves molecules encountering each other in an aqueous medium.
To anyone who actually looks it involves more than that.
Protein synthesis can be carried out in vitro.
Not without us it can't.Joe_{August 14, 2013
August
08
Aug
14
14
2013
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

KF
1: Symbols, operations and instructions are often physically instantiated in information-processing systems, e.g. holes in punch card and tape systems used in NC machines, magnetic tape or disks, prong height of Yale type lock keys [physical instantiation of a password).
OK
2: The prong height system is amenable to polymer implementation, where the sequence of monomers from a set — here, A/G/C/T or U — will encode and store information in prong height.
Nope. The inherent tendency of nucleotides to associate in a double helix with the complementary bonding between purines and pyrimidines emerges purely chemically.
3: Specifically, with a four state per monomer position string system, a three base codon can exist in one of sixty-four states, such as AUG, CCA etc.
OK
4: Thus, we see the genetic code, where each codon in sequence instructs the Ribosome-tRNA system to start, extend and eventually terminate a protein string made of the 20 or so AA’s used in life.
OK except "instructs"? It's molecules we have here!
5: Where also, the AA carried by a given tRNA is NOT set by any mechanical necessity of the configuration of the anticodon that matches the prong pattern of a given codon.
OK. As Upright Biped has pointed out, the point at which the specificity of an amino acid for its codon emerges is in the charging of the appropriate tRNA by the class of enzymes referred to as aminoacyl tRNA synthetases.
6: Indeed, the AA is coupled to a universal joint, the CCA end. The tRNA is loaded by a special enzyme that senses its conformation.
Again the anthropomorphisms. There is no "sensing" going on.
7: As a result tRNAs can be and have been reprogrammed, especially the stop codons. (This has of course been repeatedly pointed out to AF and ilk, just repeatedly ignored. Clearly, this does not fit the agenda so it must be wished away.)
As a result of what?
8: In short, the link from DNA to mRNA to protein chain is algorithmic and informational, not mechanical necessity.
Nobody is suggesting that DNA does not carry the bulk of information necessary for cells to grow and reproduce. Wanting to categorize it with semiotics and computers is an error.Alan Fox_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Hi ericB Allen is a mis-spelling of my name. I know even bright guys like Allen MacNeill get it wrong but still... You ask:
If it’s just unguided chemicals knocking about, then please tell us how unguided chemicals began to knock about in this way (which we don’t find anywhere else in the universe, other than in designed systems).
Indeed, the interior of a cell is not by any stretch of the imagination like a molecule-sized factory floor. Cellular activity involves molecules encountering each other in an aqueous medium. There is no real equivalent to the Ford production line. Protein synthesis can be carried out in vitro.Nirenberg and Matthaei's classic experiment in 1961 led the way in elucidating the codon to residue correspondence in DNA. But I suspect you are asking about the origin of life rather than its subsequent evolvability. Can't help you there. There are lots of ideas based on little evidence so I don't currently have any idea how life got started on Earth.Alan Fox_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

To Mark Frank, Allen Fox, any others? Suppose you choose to avoid the word "symbolic". Suppose you assume that the words "translation" and "code" are unfortunate confusions on the part of biologists everywhere. Nevertheless, what I notice most of all is that neither of you have made any serious attempt at all at providing a coherent scenario in which unguided chemicals could produce a working system of the kind we do see (whatever it is called). After all, supposedly...
...what is going on ... is chemistry, ...
So, if it is nothing more than chemistry, chemistry should be able to account for its origin, correct? If it's just unguided chemicals knocking about, then please tell us how unguided chemicals began to knock about in this way (which we don't find anywhere else in the universe, other than in designed systems). Notice I'm not asking you to prove your story. If you can give two or three or more coherent possible explanations that plausibly connect chemical processes to the creation of such a system, you need not show which is true, or that any of them is true. I am asking for plausible coherence with known chemistry, not proof. Show how chemistry could lead to what we see, whether or not that is the way it happened. So please take at least a try at presenting a coherent story that a rational person would find plausible as to why unguided chemicals would build such a system (cf. @296 and @302). Thanks in advance.ericB_{August 13, 2013
August
08
Aug
13
13
2013
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply