The appalling depths to which materialists will sink in attempting to insulate themselves from the conclusions compelled by the evidence were demonstrated in this exchange between Orthomyxo and Upright Biped regarding the genetic code:
UB: There is a point in time and space where an association is made between a codon and an anticodon. There is also a point in time and space when there is an association made between an anticodon and an amino acid.
UB: the association between the codon and the amino acid is a discontinuous association. It is not established by dynamics, but by a) a specific type of organization, and b) simultaneous coordination between two independent sets of multiple sequences
Note that the nothing UB said is the least bit controversial. All he is saying is that the genetic code works like any other code. As KF frequently notes, Crick knew this from the very beginning. Nearly 70 years ago (March 19, 1952) he wrote:
Which is why Orthomyxo’s reply is so stunning. Ortho’s deeply held metaphysical views are threatened by UB’s observation, so he says:
I really can’t say I find this to be a very good argument. The question is does the genetic code work through a series of chemical reactions. You say the chemical reaction that links amino acid to tRNA and the one that links loaded tRNAs to a codon are “discontinuous” because they happen at different times. (I presume by this you a referring to the fact loaded tRNAs used in translation are drawn from a pool of already made “translation-ready” tRNAs?). But I don’t see how that changes the fact that the genetic code works via a series of chemical reactions.
Ortho: Never mind that hyper-sophisticated “string data structure carrying a prong-height-based alphanumeric, 4 state per character code that uses chemical interactions and geometry at physical level.”* Nothing to see here. It’s chemical reactions all the way down.
UB sums up Ortho’s willfully obdurate reaction to the evidence:
You can push the “A” key on your computer and the letter “A” will appear on your screen. You can then ignore everything else and steadfastly argue that this entire process “works” by dynamics. This is the cop out that Ed chooses because he is intellectually unwilling to face the necessary coordination of symbol vehicles and constraints (i.e. the discontinuous association) required for the system to actually function as it does. If this is your cop out as well, then you are certainly free to take it. Is this your cop out? Regardless of your answer to that question, when you say that it is ”absolutely the case that the next amino acid in a developing protein is determined by chemistry” you are wrong. That chain of events from DNA to binding is undeniably discontinuous, just as it is from the “A” key on your computer to the letter “A” appearing on your screen.