Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2017 12:26 PM
409 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,209 Year: 9,815/21,208 Month: 2,902/2,674 Week: 326/961 Day: 56/134 Hour: 6/19

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Author Topic:   The "Digital Code" of DNA
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3229 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: http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html

...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 yet responded

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

    
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3295 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 62 of 143 (409537)
07-10-2007 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
07-08-2007 1:34 PM


Re: Back to digital codes
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:
Dean Kenyon was the leading evolutionary biologist in 1970s and 1980s, but eventually became a reluctant creationist after being challenged by one of his students to explain protein assembly without original sequence information

Well that is not a very good lead in. As if the Bible provides a more satisfying explanation of protein assembly....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 07-08-2007 1:34 PM Rob has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Matt P, posted 07-10-2007 4:00 PM iceage has not yet responded

  
Matt P
Member (Idle past 2155 days)
Posts: 106
From: Tampa FL
Joined: 03-18-2005


Message 63 of 143 (409633)
07-10-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by iceage
07-10-2007 2:36 AM


Dean Kenyon
quote:
Dean Kenyon was the leading evolutionary biologist in 1970s and 1980s, but eventually became a reluctant creationist after being challenged by one of his students to explain protein assembly without original sequence information

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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 2:36 AM iceage has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Rob, posted 07-12-2007 2:02 AM Matt P has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3229 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... :p
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: http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html

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 yet responded

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

    
anglagard
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2157
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 65 of 143 (409896)
07-12-2007 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rob
07-12-2007 2:02 AM


Re: Dean Kenyon
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rob, posted 07-12-2007 2:02 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Rob, posted 07-12-2007 9:33 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3229 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: http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html
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 yet responded

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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 67 of 143 (409925)
07-12-2007 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Rob
07-12-2007 9:33 AM


Re: Dean Kenyon
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Rob, posted 07-12-2007 9:33 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Rob, posted 07-12-2007 10:13 AM ringo has responded
 Message 70 by Fosdick, posted 07-12-2007 10:29 AM ringo has responded
 Message 101 by Rob, posted 07-13-2007 2:18 AM ringo has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3229 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 responded

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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 69 of 143 (409930)
07-12-2007 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Rob
07-12-2007 10:13 AM


Re: Dean Kenyon
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Rob, posted 07-12-2007 10:13 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2881 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 70 of 143 (409932)
07-12-2007 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by ringo
07-12-2007 10:03 AM


Code above-and-beyond DNA
Ringo wrote:

The issue is whether or not genetic information is a "digital code" that is somehow above and beyond the structure of the DNA molecule.


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.

—HM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 07-12-2007 10:35 AM Fosdick has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 71 of 143 (409933)
07-12-2007 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Fosdick
07-12-2007 10:29 AM


Re: Code above-and-beyond DNA
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Fosdick, posted 07-12-2007 10:29 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Fosdick, posted 07-12-2007 10:47 AM ringo has responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2881 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 72 of 143 (409936)
07-12-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by ringo
07-12-2007 10:35 AM


Re: Code above-and-beyond DNA
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 07-12-2007 10:35 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 07-12-2007 10:54 AM Fosdick has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 73 of 143 (409939)
07-12-2007 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Fosdick
07-12-2007 10:47 AM


Re: Code above-and-beyond DNA
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:
I argue, as do many others:
DNA/RNA are just chemicals. Not something more thanks to this "digital code". This is not a hinderance to any hypothesis of abiogenesis.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Fosdick, posted 07-12-2007 10:47 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Fosdick, posted 07-12-2007 11:09 AM ringo has responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2881 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 74 of 143 (409943)
07-12-2007 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by ringo
07-12-2007 10:54 AM


Re: Code above-and-beyond DNA
Do you know of any other natural molecules besides nucleic acids that contain digital codes?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 07-12-2007 10:54 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ringo, posted 07-12-2007 11:20 AM Fosdick has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 12915
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 75 of 143 (409945)
07-12-2007 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Fosdick
07-12-2007 11:09 AM


Re: Code above-and-beyond DNA
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Fosdick, posted 07-12-2007 11:09 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Fosdick, posted 07-12-2007 11:32 AM ringo has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017