Science and Freethinking

_{GilDodgen
September 23, 2011

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

Everyone has a religion, a raison d’être, and mine was once Dawkins’. I had the same disdain for people of faith that he does, only I could have put him to shame with the power and passion of my argumentation.

But something happened. As a result of my equally passionate love of science, logic, and reason, I realized that I had been conned. The creation story of my atheistic, materialistic religion suddenly made no sense.

This sent a shock wave through both my mind and my soul. Could it be that I’m not just the result of random errors filtered by natural selection? Am I just the product of the mindless, materialistic processes that “only legitimate scientists” all agree produced me? Does my life have any ultimate purpose or meaning? Am I just a meat-machine with no other purpose than to propagate my “selfish genes”?

Ever since I was a child I thought about such things, but I put my blind faith in the “scientists” who taught me that all my concerns were irrelevant, that science had explained, or would eventually explain, everything in purely materialistic terms.

But I’m a freethinker, a legitimate scientist. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. And the evidence suggests that the universe and living systems are the product of an astronomically powerful creative intelligence.

Comments

Then one is logically forced to turn for an explanation of the design, to the only process known to modify population genomes over time, and that would be evolution. No one disputes it happens. It's just a matter of filling in the pathetic details. Just noting the complexity and saying, "Oh wow," is stamp collecting. We have a science devoted to filling in the details.Petrushka_{September 30, 2011
September
09
Sep
30
30
2011
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

3.3.1.2.3 by Dmullenix Hello, You quoted Dembski as saying: "ID is not a mechanistic theory." Indeed not. To me it is a just litmus test for design. I don't expect it to do anything apart from detecting a high probability of design based on information content.Eugene S_{September 30, 2011
September
09
Sep
30
30
2011
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Dmullenix, why is it that you accept that similarity is an identifying feature of all other established design series (or, maybe you don't, maybe you think that the reason why mobile phones look similar is because they share a common ancestor) but yet fly off the handle when it is suggested that this also applies to a living design series? Let's not pretend that your reaction is anything to do with reason or evidence here. Come on, be honest, why does the mere prospect of Intelligent Design provoke such a strong, negative emotional response in you (and others like you)?Chris Doyle_{September 30, 2011
September
09
Sep
30
30
2011
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

This is a reply to 3.3.1.2.2 ScottAndrews Your reply is a little unclear. Are you agreeing that all modern day life starts out in one of the sweet spots in the search space and "finds" new sweet spots for its offspring by searching only very near areas in the search space? If so, then we can dispose of about 2/3rd of all ID argumentation and concentrate on more useful topics. Regarding how the OOL occurred and how the DNA system was developed, I congratulate you on your wise debate strategy. Since both occurred billions of years ago and left no fossils that we know of, you don't have to worry about someone plunking physical evidence on the table and saying, "Like this!" I actually like that strategy so much that I'm going to use it myself. As an ID advocate, please tell me how the first living thing was produced, what it looked like, how it worked and how it went on to develop the DNA system we see today. "The Intelligent Designer did it." won't do as an answer. That's like me saying that chance combinations of atoms produced the first replicator and Darwinian evolution produced the DNA system. I'm asking you to provide me with the same answers you're asking science for: What did the first self replicator look like? Was it a polymer? Then what was its structure. Was it a chain of chemical reactions that ended up with a new copy of the starting chemical? Then what was the chemical structure of the chemicals? When and where was it made? How did it work? And how did it develop the DNA system? Now you may well protest that ID doesn't have those answers and I will certainly believe you since ID does no research in the OOL that I am aware of. Nevertheless, I expect you to answer those questions anyway, just like you expect science to answer yours. If you can't or won't - well, I really don't expect you to. "The Designer did it." is the most "detailed" answer ID has ever given to questions like these and I don't expect any better answers ever due to ID doing no noticeable research in this field. As Dembski said, "ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories." As far as I can tell, ID's sole self-appoint task is to make futile attacks on on their straw-man misunderstandings of evolutionary theory and, on this blog at least, on science generally.dmullenix_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

As far as I know, there is no example of complex biological information (such as that in basci protein domains) that has been explained in that way. IOWs, the darwinian theory has never explained any form of macroevolution.
There's a problem is defining macro vs micro then. Shapiro seems to be saying the whole mammalian order is an example of microevolution.
Comparing mice and men, the “genes” stay largely the same, but their deployment differs. The bones, ligaments, muscles, skin, and other tissues are similar, but their morphogeneses and growth follow distinct patterns. In other words, humans and mice share most of their proteins, and the most obvious differences in morphology and metabolism can be attributed to distinct regulatory patterns in late embryonic and postnatal development. Shapiro, James A. (2011-06-08). Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (FT Press Science) (Kindle Locations 2224-2227). FT Press. Kindle Edition.
Petrushka_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

DrRec: Not what I said. I said it isn’t reducible to a formal physical law, which seemed to be what you, or someone was getting at. Just to understand better the reciprocal positions, I would say that nobody in ID has ever believed that biological information is or should be reducible to a formal physical law or laws. As far as I can understand, that was only the bizarre position of DrBot. I think we can all agree that biological information cannot be explained by law alone. Even darwinists understand that (except maybe DrBot, if he is a darwinist). We are perfectly aware that the darwinian theory is an explicit explanation for biological informayion based on two components: Random variation and Natural Selection. The whole ID theory is about demonstrating that that explanation is completely wrong, and that a design inference is the best (indeed, the only) explanation that makes sense. We are perfectly aware that the NS part of the algorithm is a necessity mechanism, and that it cannot be treated probabilistically. But we are also very aware that the RV part of the algorithm must be treated probabilistically. And that's what ID does. You say: “Neither natural laws, random inputs, nor any combination of them can account for it.” is a strong conclusion, given that we observe complexity and functionality increasing in such processes, even from random sequences. It is a strong conclusion, and it is a true conclusion, if it is expressed more completely. That would be a better way to put it: “Neither natural laws nor random inputs can account for the emergence of digital functionally specified complex information. A combination of them, like the darwinian theory, can be accepted only if the role of the random component is limited to produce outputs which are not dFSCI, and all the rest can be expalined by law.” In the specific case of the darwinian theory, that can be summed up in the following statement, that I have often made here, and that I maintain as true: The darwinian theory can work only if all the examples of dFSCI we can observe in protein genes (or in any other form of biological information) can be deconstructed in a series of explicit simpler steps satisfying the following properties: a) Each step can be expanded by NS, because it confers a reproductive advantage. b) The random transition from one step to the other is not complex, under any definition of complexity theshold appropriate for the physical random system we are dealing with. For any realistic model of a biological system, I have suggested many times that an upper threshold of 150 bits (about 35 aminoacids) is absolutely appropriate. IMO, it s still too generous, with all the experimental evidence fixing the limit at 2-5 aminoacids, but we in ID are notoriusly generous with our interlocutors. As far as I know, there is no example of complex biological information (such as that in basci protein domains) that has been explained in that way. IOWs, the darwinian theory has never explained any form of macroevolution. And it never will, because a point is very obvious to anyone who can observe reality without the ideological bias of reductionism: functional complex information is not desconstructable into simple additive steps. That is obvious in all designed things: language, software. It is equally obvious in biological information. The reason is very simple: it is impossible to build a complex functional structure, expressing a new complex function, as the sum of simple steps, each of them increasing the existing function or bearing a new function. It is impossible for any serious complex function. Even more if the only valid function in the system is reproductive advantage. IOWs, the darwinian theory does not work, and cannot explain biological information.gpuccio_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

Dr Rec. at 42.1.1.1 Sorry for the delay. I think I understand your questions, which are valid. Allow me address them one at a time. Is the cylindrical disk of a music box information? I would say that it is not information itself, but like a book, it is a container of information. It is matter (a material medium) which has been arranged in order to contain information, in this case, the information required to reproduce a specific song. But is it abstract or symbolic? Yes, the information it contains is both, by necessity. The cylinder is an example of matter arranged to contain an abstract representation of a song. The individual and collective pins on the cylinder are iterative symbolic representations mapped to specific effects, in this case, the musical notes and melody of the original song as played in time. In a system with the appropriate protocols (tines which are spatially and tonally coordinated) for actualizing those representations, the song can indeed be reproduced. The input of information will constrain the output effect. Can any music box anywhere play the song? The representation contained in the cylinder is tied to specific protocols. A music box utilizing different protocols would not result in the same notes being played, as well as a possible change in tempo. On the other hand, if it were played in a music box of the same register but perhaps in a different octave, then the song would still be reproduced (albeit in a different octave). Can a musician read the song off it, independent of the system that plays it? I would think a craftsman familiar with such systems would likely do just that. Upon proper study, likely anyone could. Does it possess “physical entailments which may be generalized” Yes, I am certain it does, and that they can be demonstrated. I believe there is a list of four physical entailments of any such recorded information, and I believe that those entailments can be listed (as is scientifically appropriate) without reference to the source of the information. In other words, they can be listed without assuming any conclusions. Entailment #1: The first of these physical entailments is the most obvious; that is the symbolic representations themselves. Information is recorded by the arrangement of matter or energy in order to convey these representations (such as the ink on paper, or the magnetic lines left on a recording tape, or the pins arranged on a music box cylinder). These are examples of matter arranged to contain these representations, but by themselves, they cannot convey information. Another physical object is required. Entailment #2: The second physical entailment is what can easily be described as a protocol, and its inclusion on the list is easily understood. In order for one thing to represent another thing, it must be separate from it. As an example, an apple is an apple, but the word “apple” is a separate thing altogether. And if it is truly a separate thing, then there must be something to establish the relationship between the two, and that is what a protocol does. A protocol is a thing which establishes the relationship between a symbolic representation and the effect it represents. In the case of the word “apple”, we as humans have learned the protocols of our individual languages, and those protocols exist as neural patterns within our brains. These neural patterns are physical things, and they establish the relationship between the word “apple” and the fruit it represents. A bee dancing in a particular way during flight is a separate thing than having the other bees fly off in a particular direction, but the relationship between the two is established by a protocol which exists in the sensory systems of the bee. The function of the protocol is, therefore, to establish a rule that "this maps to that", which is an immaterial relationship that otherwise wouldn't exist. Entailment #3: The third physical thing on the list is the effect of the information. Bear in mind this central observation of all recorded information; all forms of such information are explicitly tied to having an effect (even if they never have that effect). For instance, there is information about which side of the road to drive on, the obvious effect of that information is having far fewer collisions. The effect of the bee's dance is that the other bees fly off in the right direction. In all cases, recorded information is tied to having an effect, and the variations of those effects are extraordinary. Entailment #4: This fourth physical item is not an object; it is the dynamic relationship which is observed to exist between the other three physical objects (the representations, the protocols, and the effects). This is one of the key physical observations which allow information to exist at all. The representations, the protocols, and their resulting effects are three entirely discrete (separate) things, and they remain discrete at all times, no matter what form the information is in (written in words, demonstrated in a bee's dance, or the extracted from the pins on a music box cylinder). For instance, the most obvious example is human language. The word “apple” is entirely separate from the fruit apple, and the protocol in our brain is entirely separate from both of those. They are three completely independent physical realities which share an observable relationship, with the protocol establishing the relationship between the word and the fruit (while the word and the fruit remain separate). This exact same dynamic can be observed in the bee's dance, with the dance itself being a separate thing from the response of the other bees, and the protocol in the bee's sensory system (causing the bees response) being separate from both of those. At no time does the representation (or the protocol) ever become the effect. So this list of four physical requirements (for recorded information) contains two physical objects (two discrete but coordinated arrangements of matter), a physical effect, and the dynamic relationship that exists between the other three. Each must be individually accounted for, and I think you’ll find their relationship in all forms of recorded information (in every example from human language, to computer and machine code, to a bee's dance). This same dynamic relationship exists in the genome as well. During protein synthesis a selected sequence of nucleotides from the DNA chain are copied, and the iterative representations contained within that copy are then fed into the ribosome, forming the input of information into the ribosome complex. The output of that ribosome is a chain of amino acids, which will then become the protein being prescribed by the input sequence. The input of information is therefore driving the output production, but as in all other forms of information, the input and the output never physically interact. The exchange of information (from the input sequence to the output constraint) is made possible by a set of very special physical objects – the protocols – tRNA and it’s entourage of synthetase. Acting together they facilitate the transfer of information from the input to the output, and they do so by allowing each to remain physically discrete.Upright BiPed_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

but all information of observed origin did originate with thoughts
Well that's not true, and Intelligent Design theory claims only that FSCI greater than 500 bits must originate with intelligent thought. The sky is filled with information, emitted as energy, from a billion galaxies comprised of a billion stars. By capturing these photons with the right receiver, we can use them to re-construct the emitting body and the intervening space - that is, decipher the information contained within a simple message originating from an "unintelligent" source.rhampton7_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

DrREC,
But is it abstract or symbolic?
Do you get music from the cylinder without the music box? Does the music require a cylinder and a music box, or could it be recorded on paper or even exist only in someone's memory? If you destroy the cylinder does the information cease to exist? Yes, I'm just throwing out a ton of questions. One more: If someone who had never heard music found the cylinder, would they be able to derive music from it? They should be able to if the cylinder and the information are one and the same. The very nature of information is abstract, because has no intrinsic relationship with any medium or form. Words can be ink on paper, sounds in the air, or electrical currents interrupted at regular intervals. They can be stored in the chemicals in our brain. The words themselves can be replaced with words in another language or hand gestures that encompass the thought but not the words. Not all information reflects a thought, but all information of observed origin did originate with thoughts. Can anyone think of another way? How did the rest come about?ScottAndrews_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

The interesting thing about music boxes, some of them used punch cards as did some looms. Hypothetically, the punch cards are interchangable even though the output (respectively, music and fabric) would be very different.rhampton7_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Rhampton7, The random sequence becomes specified as soon as you select it as your password. It is not interchangeable with any other random sequence. They characters were selected randomly but then you assigned meaning to them.ScottAndrews_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Good point.Eugene S_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

"I might suggest that information is an abstraction of a some-thing, symbolically represented" Symbolic and abstract tend to get me here. Maybe an analogy would clarify things for me-- If we took the physical cylindrical disk of a music box, is that information? It instructs the system how to make music, when translated by the keys. But is it abstract or symbolic? Does it possess "physical entailments which may be generalized" Can any music box anywhere play the song? Can a musician read the song off it, independent of the system that plays it (tone and speed would be indicated)?DrREC_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

Your answer seems somewhat ambiguous, so may I press for clarity: Does this phenomena fit within any recognizable definiton of information, or not? Does its existence result in any physical entailments which may be generalized? For instance, I might suggest that information is an abstraction of a some-thing, symbolically represented in an arrangement of matter (such as the arrangement of nucleotides for instance). In such a case, the arranegment of matter (to serve as a representation to be decoded) would be a physical entailment that the information exists.Upright BiPed_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

DrREC, This is not a new point, it is a reassertion:
the random inputs are filtered into outputs that are anything but.
Agreed, you can filter random inputs into non-random outputs. Raindrops fall at random but then natural forces pool them into predictable puddles. But if they are filtered into an ice sculpture of a dolphin then the filter itself requires further explanation. Natural forces explain the puddle but not the ice sculpture.
“Neither natural laws, random inputs, nor any combination of them can account for it.” is a strong conclusion, given that we observe complexity and functionality increasing in such processes, even from random sequences.
If that were the case then it would be an incorrect conclusion. It's provisional (which sounds nice but means very little in this case) but I stand by it.ScottAndrews_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

"You cannot declare anything plausible simply by declaring that there is a random component at work." Not what I said. I said it isn't reducible to a formal physical law, which seemed to be what you, or someone was getting at. One point: the random inputs are filtered into outputs that are anything but. "Neither natural laws, random inputs, nor any combination of them can account for it." is a strong conclusion, given that we observe complexity and functionality increasing in such processes, even from random sequences.DrREC_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

DrREC, Honestly, I've lost track of whom I'm discussing OOL or evolution with. So I'll try not to attribute anything someone else said to you. There are two different phenomena. One is the existence of complex functional systems. The second consists of an abstract code containing the instructions for manufacturing pieces of such a system combined with components for supplying the materials, interpreting the code, manufacturing the pieces, and assembling them. Purely for the sake of argument, let's say that the first requires no forward thinking or intent. The second requires both intent and planning. Neither natural laws, random inputs, nor any combination of them can account for it. To be random means that any number of possibilities might occur unpredictably. But randomness is limited. An event might have many possibilities, but they are typically not limitless. Flipping a coin is random. There are numerous possible outcomes - heads, tails, the edge, and other less likely outcomes. But you do not flip a coin and get an owl or a stapler. Likewise, molecules don't mix to create life forms with an inexplicable drive to reproduce and overcome obstacles to their own existence until they eventually become owls or make staplers. You seem to confuse unpredictability with limitless possibility. You cannot declare anything plausible simply by declaring that there is a random component at work.ScottAndrews_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

"One of the doctors started the current trend by affirming more or less that everything was due to biochemical laws," I didn't see this post. I saw DrBot explaining the function of the translation machinery is physical, and conforms to our understanding of thermodynamics, chemistry, physics etc. I did not see him saying the ORIGIN of that system did. Evolution has stochastic components, so is inherently non-deterministic, so won't be reduced to law. I believe the request to describe the origin and evolution of the system by physical law is coming from ScottAndrews. Maybe you should adress your criticism to him. That being said, I defend that diverse input, acted on by selection, produce more fit outputs. If you call this information, it increases in natural processes. I can't reduce that to a formal law. There is a substantial equivocation between nature and physical law. The series of radioactive decays of gram of a element that stochastically decay into one of several other elements can't be reduced to law. It is natural. It happens. You can statistically describe it. Likewise evolution. But right now, can I write the physical law of the formation of myoglobin? No. Which myoglobin? And why myoglobin, when other animals use other proteins to do the same function. Evolution has a stochastic component. Ok?DrREC_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

"Do you think there is information in DNA?" I think there are physical bases, which template RNA and proteins, which perform enzymatic and other functions. "Are there observable things that we can generalize to other forms of information, for instance?" Yes. For example, we can take the sequence of the bases, and derive phylogenetic and evolutionary relationships.DrREC_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

Again, the analogy stops at the inability to describe the behavior of a system with randomness as natural law. You can garner statistics on radioactive decay, but you can't predict the series. You can gather statistics on evolution, but because it is a product of random inputs filtered by changing environments, it will not be derived as a law. But again, what is your point? That processes with a random component should be reducible to natural law? Or that which cannot be reduced to natural law is false?DrREC_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Not necessarily. For example, I have a password program that generates random sequences that I can then specify to unlock a given account. While it doesn't matter what I choose for the password, but random sequences are much harder to crack and so are more secure.rhampton7_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

DrBot,
A random string contains a lot more Shannon information than a non random string.
Understood, but I'd hate to read that book or have someone stick that information in my DNA.ScottAndrews_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

But a random string lacks specificity.Eugene S_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Information is neither random, which would result from randomness. Nor is it predictable, which would result from natural laws or random events that form a pattern.
Just to point out the obvious - A random string contains a lot more Shannon information than a non random string.DrBot_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

But do you at least understand what a law is?
Yes.
tehre is no physical law that determines how codons of nucleotides correspond to nucleotides.
No, no single law, but I never claimed there was.
If you know a law connecting codopns to aminoacids, please spell it!
Go and read some introductory books on chemistry, they spell out the laws that determine how chemical systems behave. This might clear up your confusion!
No, let’s change the game. You do explain how and why a protein should take its form according to the laws of biopchemistry. Good luck.
Codons are connected to aminoacid through a protopcopl, the translation apparatus. This operates according to the laws of physics, it is a series of biochemical reactions. There are plenty of good textbooks that explain it in detail.
But the apparatus is not created by the laws of biochemistry.
I never said it was. Do you understand how this is a very different issue than how codons map to amino acids. When you say:
tehre is no physical law that determines how codons of nucleotides correspond to nucleotides.
you are making a claim about the function of the mechanism not its origin. It is your confusing conflation of the two that seems to lie at the root of this whole debate! When it does come to the actual origins, rather than declaring "the apparatus is not created by the laws of biochemistry" I maintain that I do not know, but I am very interested in hypotheses that attempt to understand the following scientific question: CAN the apparatus be created by the laws of biochemistry? And of course anyone who makes a genuine attempt to understand what the actual probabilities might be.DrBot_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

DrREC,
The analogy ends at the impact of random processes on deriving a physical law. I didn’t extend it past there, you did.
If one physical law is real and disperses particles and the other is imaginary and creates or modifies life then what was the point of the analogy? Randomness on a large scale can appear to mimic a pattern. Radioactive decay is predictable even though the individual events are random. Coin tosses tend to balance around 50/50 even though the individual events are random and one-sided. Unless you can somehow relate that to the formation of DNA information it is irrelevant. Natural laws themselves were evidently not an explanation because next you added randomness to supplement them. Randomness does not improve the picture. Information is neither random, which would result from randomness. Nor is it predictable, which would result from natural laws or random events that form a pattern. Natural laws explain the behavior of molecules which enable the transcription of the information in DNA. They do not explain the arrangement of that information, its content. They also fail to explain why such information would exist in a form that is meaningless by itself unless interpreted. Sorry for being snarky. Too much caffeine, not enough sleep.ScottAndrews_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

BTW, unlike some in this thread, Stuart Kauffman, a staunch evolutionist as he is, has a clear understanding of the problem we are discussing and a decade ago or even more, if I remember rightly, he promised to show experimentally that information can be generated spontaneously. If I am not mistaken, his antichaos paper was published in 1991.Eugene S_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Petrushka, I was referring to this - "Really? You’ve observed the designer of life at work?" which I took as a reference to OOL.
He points out that the difference between mice an men is very small.
I'm sure he does. Let him come up with a functional selectable pathway between them and then we'll see how small he thinks the difference is. If we redefine "microevolution" to mean evolution from mice to men then we need a new word for what used to be called microevolution. If that's "micro" then what's "macro?" (Just a few years ago there was denial that scientists even used that word, or macroevolution. Now they appear in research papers.)ScottAndrews_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

KF: thank you for remembering many true things. Sometimes it is good to hear what is true, just for a change...gpuccio_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

DrBot: Ahhh!!! You are, as far as I can see, stating that there is no physical law that determines how codons of nucleotides correspond to amino acids. All I have been trying to point out is that the whole reason specific codons and nucleotides correspond to specific amino acids is because of biochemistry. But do you at least understand what a law is? I repeat: tehre is no physical law that determines how codons of nucleotides correspond to nucleotides. A law is a law. If you know a law connecting codopns to aminoacids, please spell it! Codons are connected to aminoacid through a protopcopl, the translation apparatus. As the apparatus is made of molecules, those molecules certainly respect the laws of biochemistry. But the apparatus is not created by the laws of biochemistry. It's the information stored in it that allow it to work. That seems to be clear to all, except you. I will not discuss that any furthur. If you have problems in understanding the obvious, I cannot solve them. There is a big claim there, care to back it up? No, let's change the game. You do explain how and why a protein should take its form according to the laws of biopchemistry. Good luck.gpuccio_{September 29, 2011
September
09
Sep
29
29
2011
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 23 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply