Fifty different genes for eye color?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 29, 2021

Genetics, Human evolution, Intelligent Design}

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

Close-ups of people's | Credit: © Prostock-studio / stock.adobe.com

You’ve heard this one before. From the study group: Eye color is “much more complex than previously thought.” If we’d thought of trademarking that phrase, we wouldn’t be asking for money from our readers at Christmas. On the other hand, it’s just as well used for free; it’s needed so often now.

Researchers have identified 50 new genes for eye color in a study involving the genetic analysis of almost 195,000 people across Europe and Asia.
An international team of researchers led by King’s College London and Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam have identified 50 new genes for eye colour in the largest genetic study of its kind to date. The study, published today in Science Advances, involved the genetic analysis of almost 195,000 people across Europe and Asia…
In addition, the team found that eye colour in Asians with different shades of brown is genetically similar to eye colour in Europeans ranging from dark brown to light blue…
This study builds on previous research in which scientists had identified a dozen genes linked to eye colour, believing there to be many more. Previously, scientists thought that variation in eye colour was controlled by one or two genes only, with brown eyes dominant over blue eyes.
Co-senior author Dr Pirro Hysi, King’s College London, said: “The findings are exciting because they bring us to a step closer to understanding the genes that cause one of the most striking features of the human faces, which has mystified generations throughout our history.
King’s College London, “Eye color genetics not so simple, study finds” at ScienceDaily (March 11, 2021)

Some of us recall learning in school that eye color was strictly a one-off. Brown eyes were represented by a capital B and blue eyes by a small b. Only one square in the diagram had two bb’s. That, we were told, was why blue eyes were rare…

Not that they were at all rare in our community. But hey, it was science! Who were we to argue?

Well, fast forward: Trust the science? It’s a good thing no one needed to take that one very seriously. It’s another thing when they’re dogmatically wrong about the stuff that really matters.

By the way, all this stuff supposedly came about purely by natural selection acting on random mutations (Darwinism)? Naw.

The paper is open access.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Comments

. Do I have any questions for you? Well, let’s see. Months ago, you told us of your enthusiastic expectation that the design inference would be used successfully with SETI. You were asked what specific finding would be the criteria for that success, and you replied with the finding of encoded symbolic content (i.e. a universal correlate of intelligence). You were then reminding that this is the exact criteria used in the design inference in ID, which you deny at all costs, and you were asked “Why the double-standard?” in your reasoning. Since that time, you have used every play in the book to conceal the fact that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed, and that the ID inference is entirely valid by your own standards. Not only is it valid, the documented science and history behind it is not even controversial. You launched into a campaign of denial and obfuscation. This included your initial attempt to simply ignore the obvious contradiction. When that didn’t work you began dishonestly attacking me personally for pointing it out to you. You then graduated into falsely suggesting that research on the subject wasn’t what it was. In your continuous attempts to deflect the problem and maintain your double-standard, you even fronted the ridiculous notion that we might receive a signal containing encoded symbolic content from outer space and not actually infer the work of a previously unknown intelligence. Hell, you were even forced to admit that the molecular evidence against the ID inference wasn’t even compelling as it stands. So no, I don’t have any further questions for you right now.Upright BiPed_{April 4, 2021
April
04
Apr
4
04
2021
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped: Asking questions is not the same as barking out requests for evidence. You choose to interpret everything I say in a negative, confrontational sense. If you want to ask me a question in a collegial manner I will try and answer honestly. I can't promise to answer in a way you find satisfying but I will try.JVL_{April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

. (Your words are recorded on the blog. You could have just been honest instead)Upright BiPed_{April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

.
UB: But I would like to know the answer to a question. It is actually an old question, posed across cultures around the world. I think this is so, because it perhaps captures some core element of being a human. Now, you know that a fundamental scientific prediction was made about self-replication, and that this prediction was spectacularly confirmed by experiment. And you know (even though you would never admit it) that this prediction, its confirmation, along with the chain of understanding that followed it, including the physical description of the system and its critical requirements, are all on solid scientific footing and they form a completely sound inference to design in biology. Clearly you know all this; it is demonstrated in the way you dodge and weave to avoid it all (comment after comment after comment). My question in this: with all your clumsy defenses against science and reason, are you actually trying to convince me, or yourself? By that I mean, when you come here, knowing what you know, yet still barking out requests for evidence, are you actually trying to convince people who accept the legitimacy of the science to ignore it, or are you just trying to get by with the lowly consequences of your worldview? JVL: I am not ‘barking out requests for evidence’
(just this week alone) Thread A: ”How about: no known intelligent designers about?” Thread B: “I see no credible evidence of a designer around at . . . what time was it?” Thread C: “No designer means no design. Propose to me a sensible suggestion of a designer”Upright BiPed_{April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 64 - again, that's not what I wrote.Bob O'H_{April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Clearly the people who are researching unguided development of the genetic system think it’s possible that it arose spontaneously.
They are HOPING. They don't have any evidence for it. Their work is as much a waste of time as is those looking for how nature produced Stonehenge.ET_{April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: But I would like to know the answer to a question. It is actually an old question, posed across cultures around the world. I think this is so, because perhaps it captures some core element of truth about being a human. Now, you know that a fundamental scientific prediction was made about self-replication, and that this prediction was spectacularly confirmed by experiment. And you know (even though you would never admit it) that this prediction, its confirmation, along with the chain of understanding that followed it, including the physical description of the system and its critical requirements, are all on solid scientific footing and they form a completely sound inference to design in biology. Clearly you know all this; it is demonstrated in the way you dodge and weave to avoid it all (comment after comment after comment). My question in this: with all your clumsy defenses against the science and reason, are you actually trying to convince me, or yourself? By that I mean, when you come here, knowing what you know, yet still barking out requests for evidence, are you actually trying to convince people who accept the legitimacy of the science to ignore it, or are you just trying to get by with the lowly and unfortunate consequences of your worldview? I am not 'barking out requests for evidence'. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I try and answer questions put to me honestly. Sometimes I ask questions and I expect to be answered honestly and courteously. I think we should just leave the topic because we're not achieving anything. Clearly the people who are researching unguided development of the genetic system think it's possible that it arose spontaneously. And it's not just a few researchers who think that. I don't know if they'll ever figure it out but I'm happy that that work is going on. I'd love to have a plausible path elucidated in my lifetime but we'll have to wait and see. If you think their work is a waste of time then perhaps you should tell them so and see what they say.JVL_{April 3, 2021
April
04
Apr
3
03
2021
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

. We are in the hill country here, and can’t seem to shake off the cool weather. But the lemon trees have bloomed, and so we are covered in hummingbirds.Upright BiPed_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Good to see you, Mung. I hope all is well.
Likewise my friend! We have mountains here, and northern climes, to explian snow and ice. LoL.Mung_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

. Good to see you, Mung. I hope all is well.Upright BiPed_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

They are all purely speculative, and not one of them demonstrates experimental results connecting them to the required end result.
So what. Since when does argument and evidence matter?Mung_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

.
UB: JVL, which one of your cites is not speculative? JVL: There are all research results published in peer- reviewed journals. Why don’t you read them?
They are all purely speculative, and not one of them demonstrates experimental results connecting them to the required end result. They are speculation upon speculation. Is it actually your belief that there is an rate-dependent self-replicator out there in the literature, capturing even a portion of the necessary pathway to becoming a rate-independent replicator, but it is somehow unknown in places like here at UD — somehow it is completely off the radar in the grand debate over design vs materialism? Hello?
The papers are examining and exploring the ways that stereochemical affinities might be responsible...
Yes JVL, we are all quite aware of that. They are still searching for that possibility because none of its most convinced proponents knows if it is even possible. Does that simple concept — searching for something because you are neither in possession of it nor have you already found it — not make sense to you? Surely it does. So by definition, it is speculative. Now, with that fact in hand, let us put a little qualifier on it. Go back to those papers you cited and do a word search for the word “symbol”, and see how many authors mention it. Do a word search for the word “medium” or “interpretive constraint”. Do a search for the phrase “rate-independent”. Try it for the phrase “semantic closure”. I have been reading papers like those for years now. I can tell you that you are not going to find anything. ”But!” you say, those are specific subjects that can bediscussed using different language, so that demonstrates nothing. Well then, since you indicate that “biosemiosis” is now a mainstream concept, try it for the word “semiosis” or “semiotic”. Still nothing. Okay then, look them over and see where they are talking about those critical subjects using their own language. You still won’t find anything. The point is, they are not even talking about these things; that is, they are not talking about the required core physical conditions of an autonomous open-ended self-replicator. ”But!” you say again, these researchers are only interested in finding a single piece of a much larger puzzle, and so it still means nothing. Okay, you think an inventor will stumble upon his prize without considering what is required of it, okay fine. Go to the papers you cited, and look at the papers they cite. Look for the physical requirements of self-replication among them. You are still not gong to find it. The bottom line is that the critical physical requirements of autonomous self-replication are not even discussed among the world’s leading OoL researchers. Sydney Brenner, when talking about the heady days of DNA discoveries following von Neumann’s predictions, noted that even today’s biologists (decades after the confirmation of von Neumann) are suspect in their adaptation to the new paradigm. Pattee, slightly more direct, posed the question of why reductionist biologist are rarely heard discussing the physical requirements that lay before them. He answered his own question: “Because its hard”. So now lets ask a question, JVL. The physical conditions required to establish and bridge the “epistemic cut” (Von Neumann, Pattee), making a physical system capable of autonomous description-based self-replication (i.e. life, evolution) are very specific, entirely simultaneous, and completely unique among all other systems known to the physical sciences (except language of course). I wont cleverly ask you if those specific material conditions are somehow unimportant to OoL research; only a fool would answer that in any way other than the obvious. I simply want to point out that the cites you provide don’t even consider those specific conditions in their research, and are in fact, willfully unrelated to them. Likewise, I won’t ask “why” you think your cites are ignoring these critical physical requirements, because as you’ve already demonstrated, it is simply too easy for you to punt it all away with gratuitous platitudes about the “the way science works” or “keeping an open mind” or some other banal self-serving language. But I would like to know the answer to a question. It is actually an old question, posed across cultures around the world. I think this is so, because perhaps it captures some core element of truth about being a human. Now, you know that a fundamental scientific prediction was made about self-replication, and that this prediction was spectacularly confirmed by experiment. And you know (even though you would never admit it) that this prediction, its confirmation, along with the chain of understanding that followed it, including the physical description of the system and its critical requirements, are all on solid scientific footing and they form a completely sound inference to design in biology. Clearly you know all this; it is demonstrated in the way you dodge and weave to avoid it all (comment after comment after comment). My question in this: with all your clumsy defenses against the science and reason, are you actually trying to convince me, or yourself? By that I mean, when you come here, knowing what you know, yet still barking out requests for evidence, are you actually trying to convince people who accept the legitimacy of the science to ignore it, or are you just trying to get by with the lowly and unfortunate consequences of your worldview?Upright BiPed_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: JVL, which one of your cites is not speculative? There are all research results published in peer- reviewed journals. Why don't you read them? What part of a “rate-independent medium, mediated by non-integrable elements constraints” (i.e. the actual measured physical description of the system) does it demonstrate?l The papers are examining and exploring the ways that stereochemical affinities might be responsible for the genetic 'code', or at least parts of it. That's how science works, it takes a question or a piece of a bigger question and tries to answer it. If they are all speculative, and none of them demonstrates the required system, or even provides a demonstrated pathway to the required effect, then on what specific grounds (i.e. reasoned details) do you consider them more “compelling” than the documented predictions, experimental confirmations, and measure physical analysis that are already recorded in the literature (which you cannot deny)? I consider them worthy explorations into the limits and abilities of the actual physical systems involved. Biology doesn't exist in the abstract or on paper; it's best to examine its abilities and limits in the real world. And can you please try to be specific about your reasoning this time? And please tell us: how does your answer remove the double-standard you insist on keeping in your reasoning. I've explained my reasoning and why I don't think I am ascribing to a double standard. I've got nothing else to add to my explanation so if you find it unsatisfactory we'll just have to leave it.JVL_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

I would characterize Darwinism as natural selection acting on the variation of heritable traits. Darwin didn’t know anything about the gene or genetics. His theory requires two things. 1) The heritability of traits (he didn’t even rule out the inheritance of acquired characteristics). 2) A source of variation of heritable traits. The current belief is that mutations are the ultimate source.Steve Alten2_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

but I won’t ask them here.
The term is in the OP. You will get lots of different opinions here.jerry_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

OK. I probably have some questions about what Jerry wrote, but I won't ask them here.Viola Lee_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

. I believe you folks are posting on the wrong thread. A system error I assume. ** On that note, my spell check system added the word “elements” to my post at #65. It was not intended to be there.Upright BiPed_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

what is meant by “Darwinist” here? Thanks.
Someone who espouses the ideas of Darwin. Or today what is called the modern synthesis which has several iterations. Essentially anyone who espoused that the major mechanism for evolutionary change is natural selection operating on mutations. Since Darwin threw in the concept of universal common descent, that is also part of it. The term “modern synthesis” is out of favor with a lot of people but it essentially is what most understand by Darwinism. Some throw in atheism but a lot of religious subscribe to these ideas so it isn’t really part of it. However, atheists have to explain evolution so it has become the only game in town for most of them. There is always nuances but no major deviations from these ideas. I believe Darwin’s ideas were revolutionary but not for evolution to the origin of species. They are the basis of modern day genetics. For evolution they are a bust. They cannot explain the appearance of proteins.jerry_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Off-topic, but related to my post on HGT: can someone tell me exactly what is meant by "Darwinist" here? Thanks.Viola Lee_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

. JVL, which one of your cites is not speculative? What part of a “rate-independent medium, mediated by non-integrable elements constraints” (i.e. the actual measured physical description of the system) does it demonstrate? If they are all speculative, and none of them demonstrates the required system, or even provides a demonstrated pathway to the required effect, then on what specific grounds (i.e. reasoned details) do you consider them more “compelling” than the documented predictions, experimental confirmations, and measure physical analysis that are already recorded in the literature (which you cannot deny)? And can you please try to be specific about your reasoning this time? And please tell us: how does your answer remove the double-standard you insist on keeping in your reasoning.Upright BiPed_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Well Bob, if your theory can't even explain how eye color originated,,,, do I really even need to finish that sentence?bornagain77_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Jerry @ 9 -
Second, Bob O’H identifies as a Darwinist.
No I don't. ba77 @ 13 -
Of further note to Bob’s claim that Darwinists “have models initially developed a century ago” that can tell us exactly how eye color originated.
I never claimed that. *sigh*Bob O'H_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284479/
Spark-tube experiments and analysis of meteorite contents have led to the widespread notion that abiotic organic molecules were the first life components. However, there is a contradiction between the abundance of simple molecules, such as the amino acids glycine and alanine, observed in these studies, and the minimal functional complexity that even the least sophisticated living system should require. I will argue that although simple abiotic molecules must have primed proto-metabolic pathways, only Darwinian evolving systems could have generated life. This condition may have been initially fulfilled by both replicating RNAs and autocatalytic reaction chains, such as the reductive citric acid cycle. The interactions between nucleotides and biotic amino acids, which conferred new functionalities to the former, also resulted in the progressive stereochemical recognition of the latter by cognate anticodons. At this point only large enough amino acids would be recognized by the primordial RNA adaptors and could polymerize forming the first peptides. The gene duplication of RNA adaptors was a crucial event. By removing one of the anticodons from the acceptor stem the new RNA adaptor liberated itself from the stereochemical constraint and could be acylated by smaller amino acids. The emergence of messenger RNA and codon capture followed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6584/
Does the genetic code assign similar codons to similar amino acids because of chemical interactions between them? Unlike adaptive explanations, which can only explain the relative positions of amino acids in the code, stereochemical explanations could tie codon assignments to absolute, verifiable rules. However, modern translation encodes amino acid sequences without direct codon/amino acid interaction. If there is a relationship between RNA sequences with intrinsic affinity for amino acids and the modern genetic code, we must therefore explain a historical transition in which direct interactions were abandoned. We review the literature and find no evidence that interactions between short sequences (mono-, di- or trinucleotides) and amino acids are strong or specific enough to originate genetic coding. Instead, interactions between amino acids and longer nucleic acid sequences appear to recapture some assignments of the modern code. For example, real codons are concentrated in newly selected amino acid binding sites to a greater extent than codons from similar, but randomized, codes. This implies that some initial coding assignments were made by interaction with macromolecular RNA-like molecules, and have survived. Thus, subsequent selection, such as selection to minimize coding errors, has not erased all primordial chemical relationships. Retention of initial stereochemical codon assignments for three of six amino acids (arginine, isoleucine, and tyrosine, but not glutamine, leucine or phenylalanine) is strongly supported. Combining data for the six amino acids, significant stereochemical relationships are of more than one type—codons and anticodons are each concentrated in some binding sites. Further work will be required to catalog the relationships between amino acids and binding site sequences, especially if, as now appears, more than one type of interaction has been transmitted to the modern code.
https://iubmb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/iub.146
The genetic code is nearly universal, and the arrangement of the codons in the standard codon table is highly nonrandom. The three main concepts on the origin and evolution of the code are the stereochemical theory, according to which codon assignments are dictated by physicochemical affinity between amino acids and the cognate codons (anticodons); the coevolution theory, which posits that the code structure coevolved with amino acid biosynthesis pathways; and the error minimization theory under which selection to minimize the adverse effect of point mutations and translation errors was the principal factor of the code's evolution. These theories are not mutually exclusive and are also compatible with the frozen accident hypothesis, that is, the notion that the standard code might have no special properties but was fixed simply because all extant life forms share a common ancestor, with subsequent changes to the code, mostly, precluded by the deleterious effect of codon reassignment. Mathematical analysis of the structure and possible evolutionary trajectories of the code shows that it is highly robust to translational misreading but there are numerous more robust codes, so the standard code potentially could evolve from a random code via a short sequence of codon series reassignments. Thus, much of the evolution that led to the standard code could be a combination of frozen accident with selection for error minimization although contributions from coevolution of the code with metabolic pathways and weak affinities between amino acids and nucleotide triplets cannot be ruled out. However, such scenarios for the code evolution are based on formal schemes whose relevance to the actual primordial evolution is uncertain. A real understanding of the code origin and evolution is likely to be attainable only in conjunction with a credible scenario for the evolution of the coding principle itself and the translation system. © 2008 IUBMB IUBMB Life, 61(2): 99–111, 2009
This one is from 1983, so the idea is not even new: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022519383904319
The origin of the genetic code may be attributed to a postulated prebiological stereochemistry in which amino acid dimers, the trans ?R,R?-diketopiperazines, interacted with prototype codon and anticodon nucleotide sequences. An intricately coupled stereochemistry is formulated which displays a binary logic for amino acid-codon recognition. It is shown that the diketopiperazine ring system can be inserted between any terminal pair of base paired nucleotides in a codon-anticodon structure with exact registration of complementary hydrogen bonding functional groups. This yields a codon-dimer-anticodon structure in which each amino acid residue is projected towards and interacts with a particular sequence of vicinal nucleotides on either codon or anticodon. The projection direction and the sequence of nucleotides encountered is a strongly coupled function of the choice of codon terminal nucleotide and the handedness of the amino acid. The reciprocal chemical nature of the complementary base pairs drives the selection of dimers containing quite dissimilar and chirally opposed amino acids. Application of the Stereochemical model to the in vivo system leads to a general correlation for amino acid-codon assignments. The genetic code is restated in terms of the dimers selected. The profound symmetry of the code is elucidated and this proves useful for correlative and predictive purposes.
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-genet-120116-024713?journalCode=genet
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. The universality of the code likely results from the combination of a frozen accident, i.e., the deleterious effect of codon reassignment in the SGC, and the inhibitory effect of changes in the code on horizontal gene transfer. The structure of the SGC is nonrandom and ensures high robustness of the code to mutational and translational errors. However, this error minimization is most likely a by-product of the primordial code expansion driven by the diversification of the repertoire of protein amino acids, rather than a direct result of selection. Phylogenetic analysis of translation system components, in particular aminoacyl–tRNA synthetases, shows that, at a stage of evolution when the translation system had already attained high fidelity, the correspondence between amino acids and cognate codons was determined by recognition of amino acids by RNA molecules, i.e., proto-tRNAs. We propose an experimentally testable scenario for the evolution of the code that combines recognition of amino acids by unique sites on proto-tRNAs (distinct from the anticodons), expansion of the code via proto-tRNA duplication, and frozen accident.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.20.958546v2.full
A near-universal Standard Genetic Code (SGC) implies a single origin for Earthly life. To study this unique event, I compute paths to the SGC, comparing different histories. SGC-like coding tables emerge, using traditional evolutionary mechanisms - a superior evolutionary route can be identified. To objectively measure evolution, progress values from 0 (random coding) to 1 (SGC-like) are defined, measuring fractions of random-code-to-SGC distance. Progress types are spacing/distance/delta Polar Requirement, detecting space between identical assignments /mutational distance to the SGC/chemical order, respectively. The coding system was based on selected RNAs performing aminoacyl-RNA synthetase reactions. Acceptor RNAs exhibit SGC-like wobble; alternatively, non-wobbling triplets uniquely encode 20 amino acids/start/stop. Triplets acquire their 22 functions by stereochemistry, selection, coevolution, or randomly. Assignments also propagate to an assigned triplet’s neighborhood via single mutations, but can decay. SGC order is especially sensitive to disorder from random assignments. Futile evolutionary paths are plentiful due to the vast code universe. Evolution inevitably slows near coding completion. Coding likely avoided these difficulties, and two suitable pathways are compared in detail. In “late wobble”, a majority of non-wobble assignments are made before wobble is adopted. In “continuous wobble”, a uniquely advantageous early intermediate supplies the gateway to an ordered SGC. Revised coding table evolution (limited randomness, late wobble, concentration on amino acid encoding, chemically conservative coevolution with a simple elite) produces varied full codes with excellent joint progress values. A population of only 600 independent coding tables includes SGC-like members, and a Bayesian path to further refinement is available.
The idea that the genetic code arose via stereochemical means is not even new, it is taken seriously and it is being examined and researched. It's easy to find research papers addressing the issue. Maybe all those researchers are wasting their time and taxpayers money. Maybe. Or maybe it's a viable scientific hypothesis with some evidence to back it up and thus it's worth looking into further. I'm happy to let those researchers continue their work. I'm happy to keep an open mind until the answer is really clear one way or another. I'm not going to prejudge the eventual outcome.JVL_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

. A person stands in front of an argument that relies on documented science and history that he cannot refute (but agrees to instead), and uses logic that he himself espouses and uses himself in the same situation, drawing the same conclusions. Yet, he denies the argument anyway. He calls it “not compelling.” When asked why he denies established science and reason — what specific contrary evidence he has— he has nothing to give. And when it is pointed out to him that he is denying fully documented science and reason because “it isn’t compelling” — yet he has no compelling counter evidence to offer in its place ... He says “I didn’t say the evidence was compelling now”, and then turns and wants to lecture you about keeping up with the science. Good grief.Upright BiPed_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

. The projection is hilarious.Upright BiPed_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: Stereochemistry is your answer? Some bits stick together better than other bits. When you ask a sock puppet for specificity, so that there is no misunderstanding, and the answer comes back as vague as possible, then…? It's not really my field so I depend on experts in that field. Have you looked at the research which suggests the genetic 'code' isn't an abstract/arbitrary code? Saying that stereochemistry is a compelling explanation for the origin of the gene system is like saying “righty tighty lefty loosely” is a compelling explanation for the origin of the space shuttle. It is a compelling explanation that explains nothing whatsoever. I didn't say the evidence was now compelling but it seems to be a worthy area of research. Do you agree? Oh boy, but I bet if you could have gone to the literature (or Wikipedia, ha) and cut n’ pasted the a detailed explanation, you damn sure would, right!?! You would have posted it in ALL CAPS. No, I don't do that. If you want to see the research behind the material I have published then you know where it is. But is (sic) doesn’t exist, does it, JVL. I think it does. Why don't you go and look? And in nutshell, that is why you are forced to keep the flawed double-standard in your reasoning — specifically because the design inference has actual confirmed evidence and history in support of it, and the dirt-did-it team has nothing but “some bits stick together better than other bits”. I'm not going to continue to respond in the face of clear disrespect. If you want to see the evidence and research behind the statements I have made then I'm sure you can find it. IF you want to find it. If you want to participate in a scientific endeavour then it's up to you to keep up with the research and literature. The scientific community owes you nothing and is not obligated to whiz by your venue with every new result or research paper which might cast light on your interests. You're convinced you're right and seemingly have stopped considering alternate explanations. Good luck with that approach. You might find yourself left far behind the current state of knowledge. And if you think there is no way you can be shown to be incorrect then you're not 'doing' science. That's a locked in ideological approach.JVL_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

.
UB: I Since you obviously consider it compelling, what exactly is that evidence, and what exactly did it demonstrate? JVL If it arose via chemical affinities ...
Stereochemistry is your answer? Some bits stick together better than other bits? When you ask a sock puppet for specificity, so that there is no misunderstanding ... and the answer comes back as vague as possible, then...? How does “some bits stick together better than other bits” explain the presence of a gene? No answer. How does “some bits stick together better than other bits” explain self-reference? No answer. How does “some bits stick together better than other bits” solve the measurement problem? No answer. How does “some bits stick together better than other bits” organize semantic closure? No answer. Saying that stereochemistry is a compelling explanation for the origin of the gene system is like saying “righty tighty lefty loosely” is a compelling explanation for the origin of the space shuttle. It is a compelling explanation that explains nothing whatsoever. Oh boy, but I bet if you could have gone to the literature (or Wikipedia, ha) and cut n’ pasted a detailed explanation, you damn sure would have, right!?! You would have posted it in ALL CAPS. But is doesn’t exist, does it, JVL. And in nutshell, that is why you are forced to keep the flawed double-standard in your reasoning — specifically because the design inference has actual documented evidence and history in support of it, and the materialist has nothing but “some bits stick together better than other bits”.Upright BiPed_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

ET: That is true. Eliminating blind and mindless processes is only the start. I'll let you argue with Upright BiPed on that point. Upright BiPed: IF it was shown that pre-biotic processes could establish a semantically-closed system of symbols and constraints, THEN then the design inference would be falsified. That has not happened (by a long shot). Therefore, the design inference, which is based on documented prediction, recorded experimental confirmation, physical analysis, and universal experience (none of which is even controversial), stands unfalsified by evidence to the contrary. JVL_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

JVL:
No, just because the unguided paradigm hasn’t been locked in DOES NOT grant you the design paradigm.
That is true. Eliminating blind and mindless processes is only the start. Next, we use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning. In other words, as Behe said back in 1996: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.” That is the positive side. So, if we observe that and there isn't any evidence that nature can do it, we infer intelligent design. Science 101. That is why JVL is so confused.ET_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

JVL:
I would say that, since the preponderance of the evidence and the opinion of a vast majority of scientists think there was no grand designer, nature has already shown it’s capable of creating the genetic ‘code’.
Liar. Nature has never been shown it's capable of producing the genetic code. There isn't any evidence against ID. The scientists who reject ID don't have anything to account for our existence. So their opinion can be dismissed. The genetic code looks, acts and has all of the attributes of a coded information processing system. Everything we know says that code information processing systems only arise from intelligent agency volition. There isn't any evidence that nature can produce it and there isn't even a way to test the claim. So that claim can be dismissed, also.ET_{April 2, 2021
April
04
Apr
2
02
2021
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply