Stunning Levels of Ignorance Regarding the Genetic Code

_{Barry Arrington

May 5, 2020

Intelligent Design}

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

ID critic Ed George was asked the following question: “Are you suggesting that the genetic code works through a series of chemical reactions?”

His response: “Duh!”

When asked to elucidate, he wrote the following comment:

DNA is a chemical (deoxyribonucleic acid). It interacts with other chemicals (e.g., transcriptase) to form yet other chemicals (e.g., RNA) that reacts with other chemicals (e.g., amino acids) to form other chemicals (e.g., proteins). This is admittedly overly simplified, but there is nowhere in this process that does not involve chemical reactions.

It is astonishing that someone who purports to be able to describe how DNA works (even on a simplified basis) would display such ignorance. Every educated person — theist, atheist, materialist, monist, dualist, etc. — knows that at a fundamental level DNA is about information. It is called the genetic code for a reason. Consider the very first line of the Wiki entry:

The genetic code is the set of rules used by living cells to translate information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences of nucleotide triplets, or codons) into proteins.

This is not the least bit controversial, as evidenced by the fact that Wiki did not censor it as it censors anything with the slightest whiff of pro-ID slant. Yet here is EG coming into these pages and pronouncing it is all accomplished through “chemical reactions.” Graphite is a chemical. Carbon is a chemical. Ed seems to believe that a sentence written in pencil on a piece of paper can be accounted for completely by the interaction of the graphite and carbon.

Stunning. Only a person blinded by materialist dogma would express these views.

Comments

JVL, In a design scenario I would expect non-randomness in the genetic code. There isn't anything in your Wikipedia link that says blind and mindless chemical processes can produce a code of any sort. Of course there will be chemical affinities. No one says that it works via magic. There is still a 10 million dollar prize that remains unclaimed. The prize will go to anyone who can demonstrate that chemical processes are up to the task.ET_{May 6, 2020
May
05
May
6
06
2020
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit:
ALL of the actual function of the machinery in the cells is done through chemistry.
Please explain the chemistry behind proof-reading and error-correction. Please explain the chemistry behind mRNA processing- as in how the chemicals knew what and how to process it. If it is all just chemistry then scientists are stupid because they cannot produce a living organism in a lab.ET_{May 6, 2020
May
05
May
6
06
2020
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: It is thus a red herring to point to such features in ways that enable that fallacious conclusion. No one is pointing to such features in some weird way. They are just doing some basic scientific research to see if it's possible that the genetic 'code' partially arose via some basic chemical affinities. I'm not doing the research, I'm not telling you they're right and your wrong. I'm just pointing out that some research into an area of common interest is being carried out. Some scientists have some hypotheses they are checking out. If it checks out then we can consider the ramifications. PS: There is a reason why Wikipedia is a humble source with a reputation for ideologically driven bias and bullying anyone who dares to try to correct even glaring errors and slanders. Like I said, if you have a beef with Wikipedia take it up with them. The material I quoted was fully referenced and hopefully you can get ahold of some or most of the references if you so desire. We all support science and scientific methods. So let's see how the research pans out! Like I said, it might all crumble to dust but sometimes you have to check things out to see if they work or not. Let them run their experiments and see what they get.JVL_{May 6, 2020
May
05
May
6
06
2020
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

JVL, the fact that organised structures that reflect underlying materials, their properties and associated forces of nature are common features of intelligently configured structures and systems implies that presence of such aspects does not count against design or suggest not designed. It is thus a red herring to point to such features in ways that enable that fallacious conclusion. We look for signs of design elsewhere, in functionally specific, information rich complex coherent organisation. In the relevant case, this includes string data structures carrying alphanumerical, prong height key-lock fit codes used in algorithms and reflecting language. Where, such FSCO/I and language are strong signs of design as material cause. All of this in the heart of the cell, showing strong reason to infer that the cell is designed by language using intelligence. KF PS: There is a reason why Wikipedia is a humble source with a reputation for ideologically driven bias and bullying anyone who dares to try to correct even glaring errors and slanders.kairosfocus_{May 6, 2020
May
05
May
6
06
2020
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: JVL, as expected. You fail to see that an organised coherent structure that makes advantageous use of the materials and forces of nature is a common FEATURE of designs, so its presence cannot point to likely absence of design. I didn't say it wasn't a feature of design; all I did was pass along some references to some work done by scientists which might suggest that the genetic 'code' has roots in some chemical affinities. Finally, that Wiki failed to balance one side of the story with the other is a characteristic sign of how an unbalanced narrative gains currency If you have a beef with Wikipedia then take it up with them. I went there because I had seen the material I quoted before and thought it should be part of the conversation. I don't know how far along such explorations have got but clearly there are some people taking it seriously enough to do some work on it. I am not attacking you or your position; I'm merely pointing out some research being done. I suspect more work along those lines will be done IF the hypotheses look promising. Or they might all fall apart. But you've got to check things out to see if they work or not.JVL_{May 6, 2020
May
05
May
6
06
2020
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

JVL, as expected. You fail to see that an organised coherent structure that makes advantageous use of the materials and forces of nature is a common FEATURE of designs, so its presence cannot point to likely absence of design. Similarly, you may have done Assembly Language programming (which converts to verbal abbreviations) but the issue was the structure of instructions at bit or hex code level, where the bit patterns tend to be very structural. I particularly recall this for the old 6800 and 6809 family. The structural features of D/RNA within the triplet-base codon framework reflect this pattern. The presence of dialects and artificial extensions that add further AAs to the system show linguistic structure. Finally, that Wiki failed to balance one side of the story with the other is a characteristic sign of how an unbalanced narrative gains currency. KFkairosfocus_{May 6, 2020
May
05
May
6
06
2020
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Citing Wikipedia . . . a clue itself: Not everything in Wikipedia is wrong! Anyway, there are references behind the statements. Hypothetical is the first giveaway. Guess, then somewhat distanced from by talking about a logical structure reflecting a pattern tabulated in the OP I put up. It's an idea that some people are looking at; isn't that how lots of scientific ideas start? You make a hypothesis and then test it? Have you ever seen how a Machine Language in a microprocessor is organised? The pattern is non-random, reflecting the organising intent of its designers. Yes, I have. Done some assembly level programming in fact. Wikipedia is trying to suggest that a strong feature of designs, intelligible, coherent structure, implies blind mechanism dependent on built in natural forces. Not in a general sense, just in this case. And it's not 'Wikipedia', it's the researchers who wrote the papers supporting the statements. All of which will predictably be brushed aside similar to how we are seeing evidence dismissed in the face of pandemic. I'm not brushing anything aside. I just brought some information to the conversation. We should consider all the data and if some researchers think they have seen indications that the genetic 'code' may have arisen because of chemical affinities then it makes sense that that should be explored and checked out. No one is just buying into it automatically; I'm sure all the work will be examined and cross-checked and there will be attempts to repeat it. It's a big, important question so I'm sure the work will be scrutinised closely. Scientists want to know how things work, they get ideas, the better ideas get fleshed out a bit and then checked out more rigorously. That's the way it should be. ALL scientific 'truths' are provisional based on the best data available at the time. As our techniques improve we get new data we didn't have before and that means some ideas may have to change or get discarded.JVL_{May 6, 2020
May
05
May
6
06
2020
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

JVL, Citing Wikipedia . . . a clue itself:
A hypothetical randomly evolved genetic code . . . However, the distribution of codon assignments in the genetic code is nonrandom. In particular, the genetic code clusters certain amino acid assignments.
Hypothetical is the first giveaway. Guess, then somewhat distanced from by talking about a logical structure reflecting a pattern tabulated in the OP I put up. Have you ever seen how a Machine Language in a microprocessor is organised? The pattern is non-random, reflecting the organising intent of its designers. Wikipedia is trying to suggest that a strong feature of designs, intelligible, coherent structure, implies blind mechanism dependent on built in natural forces. Engineering uses existing forces and materials to design and build coherently organised structures, with the organisation the key element that reflects design. In the case of D/RNA, notice, the bonding along the chain allows ANY sequence of GCAT/U elements, directly comparable to the character strings in the Wiki article. That the chaining patterns used are structured in a coherent, intelligible pattern of bases that correlates to AAs tells us much. And BTW there are THREE stop codons and the standard start/load methionine AUG . . . there are variants . . . which are markers of how we are dealing with algorithms. Where, multiple stops means that errors are much more likely to hit a stop, i.e. it is a safety feature. Next, the key point is the cloverleaf secondary structure of tRNA, which sets up the folded mobile tooltip arm with an anticodon at the opposite end. There is no chemical determination of the relationship between any anticodon and the STANDARD CCA tool tip. The association is set by a loading process that uses enzymes that are separate molecules. As I already noted, the loadings can be reprogrammed, indeed there are a couple of dozen variant codes, i.e. dialects . . . a direct sign of the linguistic character of the system. Complex, information rich functional organisation beyond blind search on observable cosmos scale, string data structures with alphanumeric codes, algorithms with forced halting, dialects within a general language. All, strong signs of design. All of which will predictably be brushed aside similar to how we are seeing evidence dismissed in the face of pandemic. Bad signs. KFkairosfocus_{May 6, 2020
May
05
May
6
06
2020
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

. Orthos at #45,
The question is does teh genetic code work through a series of chemical reactions.
I already stated my thoughts on that in comment #23, which I will repeat it here again:
UB: #23 I think that Barry and Ed and Ortho are talking past each other, as sometime happens. When Barry uses the word “works” in his question (I believe) he is talking about the system result. When Ed sees the word “works” he takes the shortest route to the door. The truth is that it does not matter how the question is posed, the materialists on this blog will avoid the issue at every turn.
I am not sure why I should be expected to address that topic beyond what I have already said. 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.Upright BiPed_{May 6, 2020
May
05
May
6
06
2020
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT}

MS, the physical layer is one layer in the design of a telecom system, and that is what is being missed; protocols are very real, as are linked codes. The information rich coherent functional organisation is already a sign of design. The use of string data structures with alphanumeric code and algorithms expressed in protein synthesis then points to language antecedent to cell based life. Further to this, the sequences of bases in D/RNA and AAs in proteins is arbitrary, not forced by Chemistry, that's why it is a string data structure, closely comparable to the prong pattern in a Yale type key, fitting the matching pattern in the lock's mechanism. The notion that such arose from molecular noise, is utterly unwarranted to the point of exposing a critical flaw in any materialistic ool account. But, I am sure there will be ever so many who will deny this all the way down to the foot of the cliff. KFkairosfocus_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

ET: The argument is that the genetic code didn’t arise via a series of chemical reactions. Please don't shoot the messenger! I'm just going to pass on some information! From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code
A hypothetical randomly evolved genetic code further motivates a biochemical or evolutionary model for its origin. If amino acids were randomly assigned to triplet codons, there would be 1.5 × 1084 possible genetic codes. This number is found by calculating the number of ways that 21 items (20 amino acids plus one stop) can be placed in 64 bins, wherein each item is used at least once. However, the distribution of codon assignments in the genetic code is nonrandom. In particular, the genetic code clusters certain amino acid assignments. Amino acids that share the same biosynthetic pathway tend to have the same first base in their codons. This could be an evolutionary relic of an early, simpler genetic code with fewer amino acids that later evolved to code a larger set of amino acids. It could also reflect steric and chemical properties that had another effect on the codon during its evolution. Amino acids with similar physical properties also tend to have similar codons, reducing the problems caused by point mutations and mistranslations. Given the non-random genetic triplet coding scheme, a tenable hypothesis for the origin of genetic code could address multiple aspects of the codon table, such as absence of codons for D-amino acids, secondary codon patterns for some amino acids, confinement of synonymous positions to third position, the small set of only 20 amino acids (instead of a number approaching 64), and the relation of stop codon patterns to amino acid coding patterns. Three main hypotheses address the origin of the genetic code. Many models belong to one of them or to a hybrid: Random freeze: the genetic code was randomly created. For example, early tRNA-like ribozymes may have had different affinities for amino acids, with codons emerging from another part of the ribozyme that exhibited random variability. Once enough peptides were coded for, any major random change in the genetic code would have been lethal; hence it became "frozen". Stereochemical affinity: the genetic code is a result of a high affinity between each amino acid and its codon or anti-codon; the latter option implies that pre-tRNA molecules matched their corresponding amino acids by this affinity. Later during evolution, this matching was gradually replaced with matching by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. Optimality: the genetic code continued to evolve after its initial creation, so that the current code maximizes some fitness function, usually some kind of error minimization. Hypotheses have addressed a variety of scenarios: Chemical principles govern specific RNA interaction with amino acids. Experiments with aptamers showed that some amino acids have a selective chemical affinity for their codons. Experiments showed that of 8 amino acids tested, 6 show some RNA triplet-amino acid association. Biosynthetic expansion. The genetic code grew from a simpler earlier code through a process of "biosynthetic expansion". Primordial life "discovered" new amino acids (for example, as by-products of metabolism) and later incorporated some of these into the machinery of genetic coding. Although much circumstantial evidence has been found to suggest that fewer amino acid types were used in the past, precise and detailed hypotheses about which amino acids entered the code in what order are controversial. Natural selection has led to codon assignments of the genetic code that minimize the effects of mutations. A recent hypothesis suggests that the triplet code was derived from codes that used longer than triplet codons (such as quadruplet codons). Longer than triplet decoding would increase codon redundancy and would be more error resistant. This feature could allow accurate decoding absent complex translational machinery such as the ribosome, such as before cells began making ribosomes. Information channels: Information-theoretic approaches model the process of translating the genetic code into corresponding amino acids as an error-prone information channel. The inherent noise (that is, the error) in the channel poses the organism with a fundamental question: how can a genetic code be constructed to withstand noise while accurately and efficiently translating information? These "rate-distortion" models suggest that the genetic code originated as a result of the interplay of the three conflicting evolutionary forces: the needs for diverse amino acids, for error-tolerance and for minimal resource cost. The code emerges at a transition when the mapping of codons to amino acids becomes nonrandom. The code's emergence is governed by the topology defined by the probable errors and is related to the map coloring problem. Game theory: Models based on signaling games combine elements of game theory, natural selection and information channels. Such models have been used to suggest that the first polypeptides were likely short and had non-enzymatic function. Game theoretic models suggested that the organization of RNA strings into cells may have been necessary to prevent "deceptive" use of the genetic code, i.e. preventing the ancient equivalent of viruses from overwhelming the RNA world. Stop codons: Codons for translational stops are also an interesting aspect to the problem of the origin of the genetic code. As an example for addressing stop codon evolution, it has been suggested that the stop codons are such that they are most likely to terminate translation early in the case of a frame shift error] In contrast, some stereochemical molecular models explain the origin of stop codons as "unassignable".
(I removed the reference numbers to improve readability here but you can easily go and check them.) Anyway, from my reading, it seems like there is some evidence/thinking that it's possible that the genetic 'code' arose through chemical affinities. Again, please don't vilify me for just passing this on. If you disagree with the the above excerpt then your disagreement lies with the papers behind the statements which can be found at the website given.JVL_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 20: My comment https://uncommondescent.com/design-inference/a-note-on-layer-cake-communication-systems-and-protocols/ Thank you for posting that OP and its first diagram, the Generalized Layer-Cake Model. At the bottom of that diagram, you have the Physical Layer, which is also shown as a rightward pointing arrow labeled "CHANNEL". This Physical Layer is what Ed and Ortho are talking about. ALL of the actual function of the machinery in the cells is done through chemistry. There is no known magic involved. The molecules which do the actual translation of DNA to protein and everything else in a cell operate through this physical layer which consists mainly of the electrostatic forces that bind atoms together and attract one group of atoms to another. If those chemical forces stopped, the machinery would not only stop, the molecules would fall apart. Some of the people on this blog believe that the actual formation of the various atoms and molecules was originally accomplished through non-material means and we can't directly contradict them because the basic molecular biology happened billions of years ago and left no fossils. However, when it comes to the actual day to day construction and operation of the molecular machinery that is happening in your body at this instant, the verdict has been clear for decades and gets clearer daily. We now know how the most important molecules work. We also know how they're made, the sections of DNA that specify their shape, how they're actually assembled and what they actually do when they're working. So far as we can tell, there is nothing supernatural about life. It's all physical atoms and molecules and at the most basic, they ALL operate through chemistry.MatSpirit_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

I would think that the "discontinuous association" refers to the fact that there isn't any direct link from mRNA codon to amino acid. That there has to be an existing system to link the proper amino acid to the correct tRNA. And that the relationship between mRNA codon and amino acid is indirect, not determined by chemical reactions.ET_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT}

The question is does teh genetic code work through a series of chemical reactions.
And if it did then scientists should be able to create life in a lab.ET_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

When you’ve freed up your mind from your work, you’ll find that 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. That’s the way the system “works”.
I really can't say I find this to be a very good argument. The question is does teh 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 refereing 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. If I am misunderstanding your point then please feel free to spell it out more thoroughly.orthomyxo_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT}

ortho:
If you have an argument as to why the genetic code does not work through a series of chemical reactions please lay it out.
The argument is that the genetic code didn't arise via a series of chemical reactions. There isn't any chemical reaction(s) that take a mRNA codon and produces an amino acid using it. As Upright Biped said there is a discontinuous association.ET_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

. Ortho, by all means go on and do your work When you've freed up your mind from your work, you'll find that 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. That's the way the system "works".Upright BiPed_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Ortho:
I’m not very interested in this trickle of questions
Well, it is not a trickle of questions. It is one question that you have so far (1) pretended not to understand; and (2) refused to answer when it was explained.Barry Arrington_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Wow! In a non-stunning move that surprises no one, Ortho responds with a classic burden-shifting-preliminary-to-summary-dismissal strategy.
I ahve work to do today. If you have an argument as to why the genetic code does not work through a series of chemical reactions please lay it out.
Ortho is the one who said it is chemical reactions all the way down. He sees exactly where UB is going with his "physicochemically independent" question. If he says yes, Ortho's assertion comes tumbling to the ground. If he says no, he will look like an idiot as he is called on to demonstrate how that can possibly be given the overwhelming evidence that it is physicochemically independent. So what is a good materialist to do? "I'm too busy to answer your question. Make your point, so I can scoff at it and move on!" How will UB respond?Barry Arrington_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Color. Sparks fly as blades cross! UB tries to pin Ortho down on whether he agrees that the two key chemical events in the translation process are spatially and temporally independent of each other. Ortho resists, saying he does not understand what UB is getting at. Finally, UB comes right out and presents the key question: The establishment of the code is physicochemically independent of the reading of the codons, right? We wait breathlessly as Ortho prepares his response.Barry Arrington_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

I ahve work to do today, so I'm not very interested in this trickle of questions. If you have an argument as to why the genetic code does not work through a series of chemical reactions please lay it out.orthomyxo_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

. Actually, it is much better to have agreement on core observations if any understanding is to occur. Often ID critics visiting this blog steadfastly resist such efforts at core observations, simply because they do not want any understanding to occur. They are independent, Ortho. The establishment of the code is physicochemically independent of the reading of the codons, right?Upright BiPed_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

If you have a point, can you just make it? The question game is a waste of time. (edit: or if I just say "no" can we move on to you making a point?)orthomyxo_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

. Good grief, Ortho. 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. Are those two chemical events spatially and temporally independent of each other, or not? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EDIT: I am really finding it hard to believe that you cannot answer this question. Its been understood for well over half a century. Just follow the process that you yourself describe in comment #24 (following "Well, I’m not actually here to teach you highschool biology"). It is just a "yes" or "no", actually, they are either spatially and temporally independent, or they are not.Upright BiPed_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

I mean they are happening in a cell with lots of fluxes across time and heterogeneity in space. If you are trying to make some specific point that takes us beyond chemistry, please go ahead.orthomyxo_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

. Ortho, To specify a particular amino acid for binding during synthesis there must be (as you clearly suggest and seem to understand) two associations made. One of those associations is the codon-to-anticodon association, and the other is the anticodon-to-amino acid association. I am simply asking if those two chemical events are spatially and temporally independent of one another?Upright BiPed_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

tRNA? Did nature go shopping? They can't even get one of the macromolecules (DNA, RNAs, proteins) involved in the process to form spontaneously.ET_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

. Ortho, I am having a hard time grasping how much more clear I can be. What do you not understand?Upright BiPed_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

The ribosome is a genetic compiler. It takes the source code of mRNA codons and produces the object code of a functional protein. And it can even reject what it is translating if it finds a fault. The entire transcription and translation requires knowledge. It doesn't just happen. There is knowledge of when to transcribe, what to transcribe and how to transcribe. Then there is editing and splicing. Again these don't just happen. There has to be knowledge of what to edit and what to splice. Knowledge of how to process the mRNA before it goes to the ribosome. Again, if it was just chemical reactions then your scientists must be a bunch of dolts.ET_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Ortho:
I mean… transcription and translation are a series of chemical reactions…
There isn't any chemical reaction that takes a mRNA codon and produces the proper amino acid. The codons are not used to make amino acids. The association between mRNA codons and amino acids is arbitrary, meaning it isn't determined by physical laws. Just because there are chemical reactions throughout the process in no way means the genetic code is reducible to them.ET_{May 5, 2020
May
05
May
5
05
2020
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply