|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Semiotic argument for ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
quote:Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW News I think that qualifies as complex specified information. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
quote:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...organic/gencode.html Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
please see Message 170
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
frako writes:
The word code , and information on that link are used so people like you can have an easier grasp at what's going on. Not because its a code that says build a protein like this, its just chemical reactions if you claim those are because of some code then so must be all the rest. And we live in a matrix like universe.And what did University of Washington researchers mean when they use the word "code" in this 2013 research report? quote:Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW News Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Larni writes: Could define in your own words what CSI is, please? The implication I'm getting from poster is that you cannot do so and I would like to see you prove them wrong.All the best. As I've already explained, I don't invoke any special meaning by using the term. I simply mean information which is complex and specified. I've already walked you through the definitions of the terms. Any implication that I have not done so is false. Try to keep up, please. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
THIS is priceless
Capt writes: And what did University of Washington researchers mean when they use the word "code" in this 2013 research report? quote:Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long. Page not found | University of Washington You really and truly should try to understand 2 simple ideas: metaphor and equivocation. Your apparent inability to recognize either of these concepts in the wild is causing you to look like a troll. Ok, , let me get this straight:You claim that the researchers at the University of Washington were METAPHORICALLY EQUIVOCATING when they wrote their papers about their recent research findings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Capt writes: The researchers... are using metaphor when they describe DNA as a code. You want to try backing that up with FACT?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
The researchers, like all scientists, are using metaphor when they describe DNA as a code. Researchers are big boys and can speak for themselves. If they mean 'metaphorical code' they will say it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
AZ writes: No "second code". The "second code" hype was courtesy of UofW's public relations office (think marketing folks). As usual, the weak minded press jumped at the hype. so you think that we shouldn't listen to science reportingbut we should listen to you instead. You flatter yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Capt writes: Capt writes:
You want to try backing that up with FACT? The researchers... are using metaphor when they describe DNA as a code.... Sure. I'll give you 2 facts:1 - I am a native English speaker. I understand these things. 2 - You have avoided every question asking you to explain your claim that there is a difference between the chemistry of DNA and chemistry that doesn't contain a code. That is internet code for "I'm not honest". So you prefer to launch a personal attack on my honesty rather than present FACTS to back up your assertion. Typical Darwinist hubris...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Capt writes: Researchers are big boys and can speak for themselves. If they mean 'metaphorical code' they will say it.
So how does the DNA hold the pen when it "writes" the code?What kind of ink does it use? The DNA didn't write the code, the intelligent designer of life wrote the code in the DNA at the creation of life. Capt writes: After all, if the authors meant "write in a metaphoric sense" they would say that, wouldn't they? Yes, they would. And in your word salad, you forgot to include the facts that support your statement. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
your first link writes: Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1950s, scientists have continued to find additional layers of complexity in the regulation of how genes are transcribed to make proteins. The current study from UW scientists have added additional knowledge to this growing field.-Repeat after me: There is no newly discovered hidden code in DNA. | by Matt Russell, Ph.D. | Science for All | Medium. You can keep the hype. it's enough that the author freely admitted the above. He confirms that 'additional layers of complexity' have been found, and that the UW scientists have added 'additional knowledge to this growing field'. So your claim "there is no second code!" is all hype. You might try reading the WHOLE article before making such outrageous accusations against a university's researchers and writers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
your second link writes:
Your smart-pants 'contributor' thinks she knows better than to use literary terms to describe the codon... The release also contains gems such as The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. This sentence makes me sad... yet in the SAME PARAGRAPH, gloating after showing up a research scientist, she gets a little too 'wordy' for her own good (pardon the pun):
your second link writes:
so, which one is it, you CAN use literary language in describing the genetic code, or you CAN'T.
...Some amino acids get more than one word to designate them. Either way, this contributor is screwed. Sad to say, many of my opponents here have adopted the same tactics of EQUIVOCATING. Good luck with that. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
[qs]
Ed writes:
I noticed that. Every time I encounter metaphorical language in English, hey, there it is! A big fat red METAPHOR printed right next to it! If they mean 'metaphorical code' they will say it. Thank God, huh? Otherwise some folks could [color=red]METAPHOR[/color=red] make asses of themselves.[/qs] Hey, buddy, if your only contribution is to INSULT, you're better off waiting to comment until you have something INTELLIGENT to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Capt writes: You might try reading the WHOLE article...Wise words. You might consider reading the abstract of the paper itself instead of just the PR fluff about the paper. "Genomes contain both a genetic code specifying amino acids and a regulatory code specifying transcription factor (TF) recognition sequences. We used genomic deoxyribonuclease I footprinting to map nucleotide resolution TF occupancy across the human exome in 81 diverse cell types. We found that ~15% of human codons are dual-use codons (duons) that simultaneously specify both amino acids and TF recognition sites. Duons are highly conserved and have shaped protein evolution, and TF-imposed constraint appears to be a major driver of codon usage bias. Conversely, the regulatory code has been selectively depleted of TFs that recognize stop codons. More than 17% of single-nucleotide variants within duons directly alter TF binding. Pervasive dual encoding of amino acid and regulatory information appears to be a fundamental feature of genome evolution."They seem to have left out the part about the "code" being designed. Actually, Capt, I already quoted this paragraph from the abstract on this thread or the other one on this topic. When I did, I did NOT claim that the researchers believed the two codes in the genome to be DESIGNED. So where did you get that idea? You are throwing useless RED HERRINGS into the discussion in an attempt to harass me. Any more of this an I will be reporting this to the administrators.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024