|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2774 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "Digital Code" of DNA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 6109 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
HM
Sorry, rob. Can't go there. Too busy picking my nose. Maybe later? Again, just click on the link: Abiogenesis ...then scroll down to the animated sequence with the man writing on the chalkboard and click on the play button. He is (Emeritus) professor of biology at San Fransisco State (A 'Right-Wing-Hack' factory... as everyone knows). ps. And quick picking on the 'little booger'...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 6176 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Rob (inactive) writes: then scroll down to the animated sequence with the man writing on the chalkboard I will watch the video when time permits in the next week, so I don't have a comment about the video yet. However I thought I would comment on sub-title of the video....
quote: Well that is not a very good lead in. As if the Bible provides a more satisfying explanation of protein assembly....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Matt P Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 106 From: Tampa FL Joined: |
quote: Ha! How disingenuous! I've recently read Dean Kenyon's own pre-creationist book "Biochemical Predestination", which is surprisingly good and well-researched for its time (1969). He has a full chapter on prebiotic polymer/protein assembly without genetic information, so I find it quite hard to believe that he would have completely converted with so simple a question. Also, Kenyon wasn't a leading evolutionary biologist in the 1980s. His last publication was 1976, and most of his work was done in the 1960s on prebiotic chemistry. Convert first, rethink evolution later...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 6109 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I hate to do this. Dr. Jones is going to let me have it...
Perhaps Phat is right... 'no one ever leaves EVC, they only take long breaks'. But I had to challenge you on two fronts Mr P... Matt P: Also, Kenyon wasn't a leading evolutionary biologist in the 1980s. His last publication was 1976, and most of his work was done in the 1960s on prebiotic chemistry. For the record, Dean Kenyon did not claim himself to be a leading evolutionary biologist in any decade. That claim is made by the site owner, Sean Pitman M.D. at the following link: Abiogenesis Now, I agree with you, that that claim is out of court in the context of objective judging and public discourse. It may be that Dr. Pitman feels that way about Dr. Kenyon. I certainly do put Dean kenyon at the top of my own list. But for his honesty... quite the opposite of disingenuousness. So, I don't think disingenuous is the proper label. It is zealous perhaps (and on the part of Dr. Pitman, not Kenyon). And we all get that way from time to time. It was an exageration; plain and simple. Just like your reaction to it IMO. Let's just say that Kenyon was one of the leading evolutionary biologists of his day (60's 70's?). Not the leading (and we will scrap the 80's). Now to the real matter.... since I have restored Kenyon's reputation adequately, I want to address your real point of tension: Matt P: He has a full chapter on prebiotic polymer/protein assembly without genetic information, so I find it quite hard to believe that he would have completely converted with so simple a question. What question is that Matt? What question could be so perplexing, that a man would concede his lifes work for it? It's in the clip at the link given above... Did you watch it? You evaded the issue... What question and counter-argument did the student raise that was so profound?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 1097 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Hi Rob, I missed your succinct observations, such as in this where agreement somehow turns into some kind of proof that those you are in agreement with are totally wrong.
ABE - I believe this problem, provided you view it as a problem, may be best avoided by applying the same standards to those in support of your position as you would apply to your opponents. Edited by anglagard, : No reason given. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 6109 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Anglagard... did you mean 'disagreement'? And who is wrong about what; and why? I don't hold to convention being worth much in terms of proof.
What was the question? That is what I asked Matt P. Matt P: ...prebiotic polymer/protein assembly without genetic information Yes... that is the issue. But why did Kenyon give up on that concept? The answer lies here: AbiogenesisJust scroll down to the man writing on the chalkboard and watch the 8 minute YouTube clip (as well as the following one that should pop up in the menu. And that is why I provided the link. Can anyone coherently enunciate the shear emensity of the problem... or do I have to do it myself? We can test over and over... to show that proteins are assembled using genetic information. So it is emperically factual. What is not emperically verified (and is therefore the realm of 'theo' and not science), is that proteins can form without genetic information. It may be possible. Kenyon wrote a whole book on the subject... But what one criticism (or question) made Kenyon give up on the concept in exchange for what he calls a 'far more intellectually satisfying' explanation in light of the factual evidence? Thank you for your compliment Anglagard. And your wonder... But can we please address the question? Anyone? Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 673 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: We can test over and over... to show that proteins are assembled using genetic information. So it is emperically factual. That's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not genetic information is a "digital code" that is somehow above and beyond the structure of the DNA molecule. The existence or non-existence of a designer is irrelevant and Dean Kenyon's conversion to hand-waving incredulity is irrelevant. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 6109 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Yes your quite right...
I was only correcting Matt P. My original reply to Hoot Mon will provide all of the details you need to satisfy your hunger. Perhaps it would be illustrative for me to provide another quote of Kenyon's to you on the subject more directly. And the analogy is indivisible, from the implications for origin (of which abiogenesis is the umbrella topic for this discussion. Would that satisfy your stringent and rigorous standards? All I can do is try... Kenyon: “Back in the days of Charles Darwin, relatively little was known about the complexity (the enormous complexity) of the microscopic world -the microscopic aspects of living organisms. There was a view in the latter part of the nineteenth century that a living cell was essentially a featureless bag of enzymes; all, kind of in a true solution. Not much in the way of detailed three dimensional complexity.
But of course in the twentieth century, we’ve made enormous strides in understanding that that’s not the case at all. There is a very great degree of intricacy of architecture down in the cell units. So today, everybody understands about bits and bites, and so perhaps a useful illustration of the complexity of, say the DNA molecule, might be helpful. You can calculate the number of bits contained in tightly packed DNA material that would fill one cubic millimeter of space as equaling 1.9 times 10 to the 18th power, bits ( or, 1,900,000,000,000,000,000). Now that number, is by many orders of magnitude, vastly greater than the storage capacity of the best supercomputing machines. Their storage capacity is far less, than the storage capacity in the DNA Molecule. Now moreover, the DNA itself as it functions in a living cell has about one hundred different proteins involved with just its own functioning. And then you have these tens of thousands of other proteins in the living cell also involved. So we have now a picture of immense sub-microscopic complexity. And so no longer is it a reasonable proposition to think that simple chemical events could have any chance at all, to generate the kind of complexity we see in the very simplest living organisms. So, we have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells, with the new knowledge that’s accumulated in this century.”
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 673 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Rob writes: Perhaps it would be illustrative for me to provide another quote of Kenyon's to you on the subject more directly. Illustrative of Kenyon's incredulity, yes. Since he provides no basis whatsoever for his assertions, illustrative of his handwaving too. Pertinent to the topic, no. We are not discussing "a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells". We are not discussing origins of any kind. Regardless of the origin of the simplest of cells, is there a "code" that is not accounted for by the chemical structure of the DNA molecule? Nobody has shown any evidence that there is. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5761 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Ringo wrote:
No one ever said that genetic code is "somehow above and beyond the structure of the DNA molecule." That's just more tripe rolling off your finger tips. You need to get clear about what you are saying. And you have not yet shown us how or why genetic code is NOT digital. Still waiting for the revelation. The issue is whether or not genetic information is a "digital code" that is somehow above and beyond the structure of the DNA molecule. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 673 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: No one ever said that genetic code is "somehow above and beyond the structure of the DNA molecule." Then why do you keep arguing? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5761 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Then why do you keep arguing? Because you refuse to see that nucleic acids are capable of encoding, storing, translating, and transmitting digital genetic information. That's all. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 673 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: Because you refuse to see that nucleic acids are capable of encoding, storing, translating, and transmitting digital genetic information. I haven't said anything of the kind. If you read the OP:
quote: that is what I'm agreeing with. If you have any evidence that that is incorrect, please present it and stop wasting my time with the same prattle over and over again. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5761 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Do you know of any other natural molecules besides nucleic acids that contain digital codes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 673 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: Do you know of any other natural molecules besides nucleic acids that contain digital codes? Been there. Done that. All molecules contain information in their structures. All molecules do chemistry based on their structures. The "code" is simply a human construct used to help understand the structure. It's simpler to write a short code-word than to draw the whole structure of the molecule. That's all the "code" is. It isn't something inherent in the molecule itself. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024