Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9159 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 914,835 Year: 2,092/9,624 Month: 1,525/567 Week: 133/338 Day: 5/12 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "Digital Code" of DNA
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


(1)
Message 10 of 143 (398091)
04-29-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Fosdick
04-27-2007 7:22 PM


I have a question for Hoot.
Kuresusaid:
DNA/RNA are just chemicals. Not something more thanks to this "digital code".
I was thinking of responding with, "schematics and blueprints for the F22 Raptor are just pieces of paper".. or something like that.
But then I thought to myself, 'I wonder how much entropy exists in the information processing of the two systems? And is that relevant to this discussion in your opinion'?
Btw, I first saw that 'Darwin?' quote Mod is reffering on a DVD produced by the discovery institute. They had brought it up for a different reason and also did not give it with full conviction. They did attribute it to Darwin, but if my memory serves, it was offered as conjecture on the part of Darwin. Yet subsequent biologists have remained in that arena which we affectionately call abiogenesis.
My own thoughts are that the ecosystem is greatly interdependant. We have many cases of symbiosis. We are reminded constantly (in the political arena) that the environment is 'so sensitive'. Remove one domino and the whole system collapses. And though I believe those in the 'environmetalist camp' dramatize the issue, it is obviously partially correct and stands to reason.
So the question is more than how the first life could have found food 'unproduced by a biological ecosystem' (a relatively simple problem on it's own) but also that the first ecosystem would have had to form in one locale without the tendancy (that present life has) to eat itself out of house and home. I don't hink I said that very well, but I think Hoot understands.
There is so much that would have to go right, that a one time event would almost assuredly fail. And to counter this, we must believe that abiogenesis was (in a sense) being attempted many times over, and that everything (and everything adds up to a lot) just fell into place, with the failures forgotten and the sucesses moving on. And this latter deduction is the hook upon which natural selection (and evolutionary biology)is hung.
It is not as though a universe could have just any combination of laws and componenets, and allow for life. And the same goes with the 'pre-bio ecosystem'. Is a pre-bio ecosystem really even an ecosystem?
Now, I am a layman. So I am more than wiling to be corrected on any of this. But I will respond only to Hoot, and perhpas Modulus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Fosdick, posted 04-27-2007 7:22 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 04-29-2007 11:12 AM Rob has replied
 Message 12 by Fosdick, posted 04-29-2007 12:10 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 23 of 143 (398493)
05-01-2007 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
04-29-2007 11:12 AM


Ringo:
DNA isn't a blueprint, it's a machine. And it isn't just a complex machine like an F-22, it's a machine that builds other machines.
It builds what it is capable of building, just like a cookie-cutter builds cookie-cutter-shaped cookies. No blueprint required.
C'mon......... aren't cookie cutters designed? And aren't cookies made (cutter or no cutter)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 04-29-2007 11:12 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 05-01-2007 1:56 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 24 of 143 (398494)
05-01-2007 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fosdick
04-29-2007 12:10 PM


I wrote:
'I wonder how much entropy exists in the information processing of the two systems? And is that relevant to this discussion in your opinion'?...
HM
I'm not sure how to respond to you,...
I was asking if you there is a tremendous difference in the amount of entropy between the two systems, and if (in you opinion) that was a clue to whether or not intelligence was involved because of the difference in efficiency?
I am not knowledgeable as to the basis of the question, but thought you might be. IOW, I do not know the difference (if any) between them, in terms of entropy, or if entropy is necessarily equivilant to efficiency. But I am hoping my gut is right, that's all...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fosdick, posted 04-29-2007 12:10 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 53 of 143 (409268)
07-08-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Fosdick
07-08-2007 10:57 AM


Re: Back to digital codes
I had to make a quick stop to give you a link.
Abiogenesis
After clicking on the link, scroll down to the animated sequence of the man writing on the chalkboard.
Click the play button if the YouTube link is displayed on the website. If it does not display, then click your refresh button.
The man on the chalkboard is clip 5. After watching it, other videos will pop up in the YouTube window. Find clip 6 and 7. Watch them consecutively.
After initially clinking the play button, you can also skip around through all 7 clips by clicking the menu button in the lower right hand corner of the YouTube window.
I recommend watching the entire 7 clips. They build their argument very systematically, but the meat of the matter for this topic... is found in clips 5,6, and 7.
There is also some fascinating animation from Harvard Biovisions at this site. It is the first animated link you will see while scrolling down.
Psalm 139:14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
Carry on...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Fosdick, posted 07-08-2007 10:57 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 07-08-2007 12:25 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 61 of 143 (409295)
07-08-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Fosdick
07-08-2007 12:25 PM


Re: Back to digital codes
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'...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Fosdick, posted 07-08-2007 12:25 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 2:36 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 64 of 143 (409890)
07-12-2007 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Matt P
07-10-2007 4:00 PM


Re: Dean Kenyon
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Matt P, posted 07-10-2007 4:00 PM Matt P has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by anglagard, posted 07-12-2007 3:31 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 66 of 143 (409923)
07-12-2007 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by anglagard
07-12-2007 3:31 AM


Re: Dean Kenyon
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: Abiogenesis
Just 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by anglagard, posted 07-12-2007 3:31 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 07-12-2007 10:03 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 68 of 143 (409928)
07-12-2007 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by ringo
07-12-2007 10:03 AM


Re: Dean Kenyon
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.”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 07-12-2007 10:03 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 07-12-2007 10:29 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 101 of 143 (410059)
07-13-2007 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by ringo
07-12-2007 10:03 AM


Re: Dean Kenyon
Ringo, Let me come at this from another vantage point and explain why the video clips I linked do argue for DNA in fact being digital code. For the record (I'll say it again) the whole problem of origin was never intended by me to be part of the argument for digital code. I addressed the question of origin only as a defense of Matt P's (probably innocent) misunderstanding of the problem that confounded Dean kenyon. I did not want anyone left with the wrong impression; especially Matt P.
Quite frankly, I care more for his opinion than yours Ringo. Isn't it interesting that he remains silent. But bloody nose or not, I'm going to try and pick you.
You have made it to look as though I was addressing the wrong topic. But you have never actually made any comment whatsoever about what I presented to Hoot Mon. You've disregarded it entirely as has anyone else who wishes to challenge the case.
So let's take a deep breath and sing cumebya ( however it's spelled).
If you watch the end of the 'Harvard BioVisions' clip, or the end of clip #5 and beginning of clip #6 of Dr. Kenyons problem, you will get two differently sourced versions of the same emperical fact. I will provide the link once again for your immediate convenience: Abiogenesis Just scroll down to the BioVisions clip or the Kenyon clip, click play...
That fact, which is clearly enunciated and illustrated, is that the Ribosome translates DNA into amino acid chains.
Here is one illustration of a ribosome attached to a strand of RNA and secreting the appropriate amino acid chain based on the genetic code for that particular protein.
Here is how Wikipedia describes the ribosome's function:
A ribosome is a small, dense organelle in cells that assembles proteins. Ribosomes are about 20nm in diameter and are composed of 65% ribosomal RNA and 35% ribosomal proteins (known as a Ribonucleoprotein or RNP). It translates messenger RNA (mRNA) to build a polypeptide chain (e.g., a protein)
Question: What does a ribosome translate?
Answer: It translates the digital sequence contained in the DNA (for the specified protein) that has been 'transcibed' to an RNA messenger based upon the arrangement of four chemical digits known as A,T,C,G and delivered to the ribosome for translation. As the clips show, there is far more going on than that, so we're simplifying the argument so as to appease your appetite for clarity and specificity.
If the chemicals themselves are the code for each protein (as you keep suggesting), then we would have as as many digits as proteins. But... the fact is that there are approximately 30 thousand different known proteins based upon the arrangement of only four chemical digits.
Furthermore, the binary system of computer software contains 2 digits. The 4 digits in every organisms genetic structure equates to a 'quadnary' language (a term which does not yet exist to my knowledge, but is quite useful (Ironically, when I searched for the term, the only match that came up was the word 'quandary'))
So... it seems to me, that if DNA is not a digital code, then nothing, including our best software, is a digital code.
It would be helpful for your position if the code in the living cell was less sophisticated... not more. But the reality of the situation (the emperical and scientific fact) is just the opposite.
I ask that you slow down for the sake of reason, and be courageous enough (like Dean kenyon) to recognize a spade for a spade. He had far more invested than you do; yet, he capitulated...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 07-12-2007 10:03 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 07-13-2007 2:55 AM Rob has replied
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 07-13-2007 3:30 AM Rob has replied
 Message 104 by Modulous, posted 07-13-2007 4:27 AM Rob has replied
 Message 115 by Matt P, posted 07-13-2007 2:57 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 105 of 143 (410111)
07-13-2007 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Modulous
07-13-2007 4:27 AM


Re: fyi
Thank you for that Mod...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Modulous, posted 07-13-2007 4:27 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 106 of 143 (410112)
07-13-2007 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by ringo
07-13-2007 3:30 AM


Re: Dean Kenyon
Ringo:
The only "code" involved is a shorthand invented by scientists to describe complex molecules.
Scientists did not invent DNA Ringo.
By one process or another (because God spoke, or because of some 'as yet unknown / unscientific self-organizational process)... that shorthand is what invented scientists.
It is the epitomy of what digital code means. And that is precisely why, it is in the dictionary.
It's no big deal... we didn't invent 'code'. We didn't invent the electric motor either: The Evolution of the Flagellum
We did invent war and other things though. most of our 'real' discoveries are just that... 'discoveries'.
I am not even going to argue any longer about it. Hoot Mon made the point long ago.
Let's move on ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ringo, posted 07-13-2007 3:30 AM ringo has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 107 of 143 (410117)
07-13-2007 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Wounded King
07-13-2007 2:55 AM


Re: Dean Kenyon
Come on Rob, just reading this it comes out as either stupid or disingenuous.
Surely it should say ...
"But... the fact is that there are approximately 30 thousand different known proteins based upon the arrangement of sequences of lengths varying from hundreds to thousands of digits composed of four distinct chemical digits."
Well, actually.... it should have said:
"But... the fact is that there are approximately 30 thousand different known proteins based upon the specified arrangement of 20 different amino acid sub units (the number of sub units varying from hundreds to thousands depending on the protein being constructed). The order (and possibly the relative position) of the sub-units is based upon the arrangement four chemical digits code in the DNA."
I guess we are all learning how to dot all the 'T's without being insulting.
Which brings a question to mind. Does anyone know if the shape of amino acids adds to the complexity of the arrangement mixture?
Or put another way... as three dimensional sub-units, are the twenty amino acids always linked to the same port (if we can call it that) on their surface to other acids, or are there multiple positions also possible?
I bring it up... because if the genetic code contains the information for the proper sequence in -let's say not just two dimensions but three, and actually specifies that as well, then we have an even more emense level of complexity to contend with. What would the number of possible positions for each amino acid be? Does each amino acid have the same number of ports?
I simply do not know the answer to those questions (and don't know if anyone does, but would love to know).
The startling (frankly alien) complexity of genetic information and the potential for a 'quaternary' code to specify enormous detail, leads me to infer that this is likely the case. Biology is after all, three dimensional.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 07-13-2007 2:55 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 07-13-2007 11:23 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 116 of 143 (410261)
07-14-2007 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Matt P
07-13-2007 2:57 PM


Concession + not so fast...
Matt P:
I've investigated a bit further, and Dean Kenyon was never trained as an evolutionary biologist. His training is in prebiotic/organic chemistry. He also was never a "leading" researcher, he has a grand total of two first author publications (journals and major books), of which one was his book "Biochemical Predestination". The way the website presents may be considered grandstanding, but it's grandstanding to a deceptive degree.
Well after looking around myself, I concede that you are correct. Deceptive or not, I don't see what the point would be in defending it directly.
You seem to be a reasonable man, so bear with me for a moment as I appeal to more than the surface image (personally, I don't worship the image).
The Documentary (in clip 1) also clearly refers to Kenyon as an 'evolutionary biologist'. I think Sean Pitman took them at their word as did I. So if there is any deception, then it is on the part of the producer (though I do believe Steven Meyer made Kenyon out to be so also in one of the other clips).
It's the evil PR firms I tell you... it's a conspiracy Man!
Seriously now... Kenyon's actual credentials are as follows: Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University. He received his Ph.D. in Biophysics from Stanford University. He was a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow in Chemical Biodynamics at the University of California at Berkeley, a Research Associate at NASA-Ames Research Center, and a Visiting Scholar at Trinity College, Oxford University. (source / The Discovery Institute) (if you'd like a more derogatory slant on his credentials, Wikipedia is your best bet...)
What troubles me more yet... is that the producers of the documentary feel the need to compete for attention in a marketplace dominated by 'experts' by using 'titles' that are actually irrelevant to the arguments themselves. This worship of the title of 'expert' is another matter that is a sociological issue in our intellectually dead, entertainment culture.
Nonetheless, it is the argument itself and the paradox within it that is the real issue; the question that converted Dean Kenyon (which you claimed to be skeptical of, fine). That is what you need to address. I appriciate your inclination to attend to it. I thank you for your corrections, but let us not lose sight of the arguments. It's time I raised and enunciated that issue so that Wounded King can mock my lack of legality.
The question is this: [b]how such a sophisticated molecule as RNA (or worse DNA) could emerge (and for this particular discussion... the fact that it is a digital code).
Dean Kenyon is not alone... I easily found two other scientists who are not to my knowledge affiliated with Intelligent design .
Please pay close attention to the bolded sections.
The attractive features of RNA World prompted Gerald Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute to picture it as "the molecular biologist's dream" within a volume devoted to that topic. They also used the term "the prebiotic chemist's nightmare" to describe another part of the picture: How did that first self-replicating RNA arise?
(source / Robert Shapiro We're Sorry - Scientific American )
Notice that Dean Kenyon's training was in this very area of brebiotic chemistry. So evolutionary biologist or not, he was working in the very field that had to deal with the question. The public doesn't know the difference between a biologist and a prebiotic chemist...
If anything, a prebiotic chemist is more a 'true scientist' (at least theoretically) than a biologist. Biologists get to use 'more' imagination... chemists work more with facts and laws. So this doubt you raise of deception, is in itself very cleverly positioned.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt by saying I don't think you considered all of these angles. In fact, I hadn't either frankly... until pushed by this 'spirit of unbridled skepticism' to translate my intuition into coherent thoughts.
As for Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel, consider some of their other comments on the question:
Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis...The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. (The authors subscribe to this latter view). Time will tell which is correct.
This discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man; the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential...Without evolution (are you listening Percy?) it appears unlikely that a self replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme.
(source / Darwin's Black Box / Joyce, G.F., and Orgel, L.E. (1993) "Prospects for Understanding the origin of the RNA World" in The RNA world, ed. R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, p. 19, 13.)
So that is the question / problem Matt...
In retrospect, I think the intention by the producers was to get the concept across to the public... they do in fact do so as I am a truck driver with a 'hi scule' degree. And once again, the matter raised is one that is clearly the realm of prebiotic chemistry... Dean kenyon's expertise!
As Forest Gump said after a long run, "I'm pretty tired... think I'll go home now".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Matt P, posted 07-13-2007 2:57 PM Matt P has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Matt P, posted 07-14-2007 5:15 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 117 of 143 (410262)
07-14-2007 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Fosdick
07-13-2007 12:39 PM


Re: Tautology 101
...and the arrangement of a song is only music.
"... The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether." (Lewis / Learning in War-Time 1949, pg51)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Fosdick, posted 07-13-2007 12:39 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by anglagard, posted 07-14-2007 3:07 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 120 of 143 (410315)
07-14-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Matt P
07-14-2007 5:15 AM


Re: Concession + not so fast...
Thank you for bringing me up to speed on the debate. Small RNA world it is... What will they think of next?
Matt P:
What we don't know with this may still come around to be demonstrable- for example, I think the smallest autocatalytic RNA strand is currently clocked at about 30 nucleic acids, which is starting to get past that "miraculous" and move into the realm of only "difficult".
When we do know... then all of this 'theo' may actually be worth something more than the title of science fiction. All of the technical jargon is not useful at all other than for the purpose of intimidation, of which I am not inclined.
You boys speak often of testability (the hallmark of science) yet you are far from it...
This smallest autocatalytic strand you talk of, with 30 amino acids... is that a computer generated model? If so, were the computer and the software not designed by intelligent agents for the purpose of creating this cenario? If not, was it found within the confines of an already complete organism?
One might tend to think it was found all alone in some swamp the way you referred to it. As though it were anything more than grand speculation. What do you mean clocked? Do you mean postulated by a computer 'virtual creation' with intelligent agents at the helm who's purpose is to show that we don't need intelligent guidance?
The spirit of Dawkins is alive and on the move; morph, twist, spin and laugh.
I'm not laughing. They're trying to steal your most excellent brain. Or... are you trying to steal mine?
Matt P:
Many who don't like the strong RNA world suggest instead a metabolic-focused life which would form the chemicals that lead to replicative material through specific chemical reactions.
Suggest = 'theo'. We already have a multitudes of self replicating cycles that are emperically affirmed. They are called 'organisms'.
Matt P:
It's easy to do chemistry when something is making the starting materials.
Like intelligent agents in a lab coat? You might succeed some day... but don't count your chickens until you first design a fertile egg (and keep it nice and warm in an incubator specifically designed for that egg).
Matt P:
This already-developed metabolism assisted with the eventual appearance of RNA, giving it the necessary support for the origin.
Isaac Asimov would be proud of the way you refer to imaginary things as though they are real.
Matt P:
So, my main point here is that there are two views of the RNA world- one that is immensely well supported (and which solves the chicken/egg problem of DNA/protein), the other of is still in the realm of "unlikely, but maybe."
Hope this helps!
Not really...But thank you for helping me to keep my eye on the pea. I was unaware of the re-invention of the same dilemma.
When you say 'immensely well supported' do you mean that it is a very popular 'theo'ry'? Because you almost give the impression that there is actually evidence that self exists out there... like some uncaused, self evident truth (better known as logic).
Matt, fate takes some strange twists... these arguments they give you are not just exaggerations, but beyond conjecture presented as fact, they are pure deception; clever, pea palming magic. They are miraculous signs and wonders...
And not about one's credentials, but in the arguments themselves.
Gaurd your mind friend. There are wolves who seek to devour you.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Matt P, posted 07-14-2007 5:15 AM Matt P has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by molbiogirl, posted 07-14-2007 4:55 PM Rob has replied
 Message 122 by Matt P, posted 07-14-2007 7:23 PM Rob has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024