What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

We devised that "code" to describe the way DNA interacts with RNA and amino acids to create proteins. It's all chemistry inside the cell.

This is false. It is the chemical and physical interactions between DNA and it's environment that produces the effects we see. It is the physical interactions between RNA polymerase and DNA that produces messenger RNA. It is the physical interaction between gene regulators and the DNA that results in gene regulation. The interaction between proteins is EXACTLY THE SAME REACTION that occurs between DNA and proteins. Are you serious? It is the PHYSICAL INTERACTION between the anticodon on tRNA's and the codon on the mRNA that results in a specific amino acid being added to the elongating peptide. This interaction is due to the available hydrogen bonds of the nucleotides themselves with G's and C's having three available bonds and T's and A's having two. G's interact with C's, C's to G's, A's to T's, and T's to A's, and it has EVERYTHING to do with the chemistry and physical nature of the nucleotide bases themselves.

I can admit that I should have posted his explanation in retrospect. However, I never left anyone wit hthe impression he didn't have an answer, because I explicitly stated it. You have advanced this multiple times already, and the refutation I posted earlier still stands, but I'll approach it from a different angle and hopefully it will get through to you.What characteristics of humans make them able to construct IC systems ? Is it the fact that they are a biped mammal ? Or is it their intelligence ? Or is it something else ?If it is there intelligence, then the argument is perfectly valid. I wrote the foundations of the reasoning right under what you quoted. No I have not, but that's not the point. It is that intelligent beings foresight makes them able to construct IC systems.Other then through foresight, random luck is the only other way to produce an IC system. It requires individually detrimental mutations, but collectively beneficial mutations. So these mutations must come about all at once, or at least appear to NS all at once. This is the basis of what Koch is talking about.

This still does not refute the inductive argument that all IC systems were produced by humans. Until you offer a counter-example the argument stands, by your own rules. Which is irrelevant to the origin of IC systems. It takes foresight to make a freezer that can freeze water. This doesn't mean that every piece of frozen water requires an intelligence. In every case? The irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear did not require two reptillian lower jaw bones to stop functioning until those bones evolved into middle ear bones. Both the middle ear and the lower jaw stayed function through the entire evolution of the system.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

You're missing the point. The code isn't descriptive of the interactions; GAA isn't any more physically attracted to Glutamic acid then CAC. Nor is Phenylalaline more attracted to UUU then Leucine.There is no physical basis for the code, the code is simply descriptive of 'how it is', with no other reason for it.

I'm not a geneticist, but I'd say you're quite wrong. If there was no reason, involving either hydrogen bonds or something equally chemistry/physics-esque, there'd be far more creationists in that field.I wonder if WOunded King could shed some light here?

GAA is more physically attracted to the CTT on the tRNA for glutamic acid. That is why a glutamic acid is added to the peptide. It is the physical interaction between the anti-codon on the tRNA's and the codon on the mRNA that results in the amino acid sequence.ABE: That should be CUU. I always forget to replace uracils for thymines.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

And you might have noticed I never accused you of quoting him. As a matter of fact my post was not in response to you or had anything to do with your post. Ad hominem? He has been refuted numerous times. I even gave examples of his deceit. His claims have been repeatedly shown to have no merit. Even you could do some basic research and see that.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

That's a bit of a faux pas. When you quote someone you should try to pull it from the primary source, not from a secondary source, or even worse from a known liar like Woodmorappe. Given the track record of creationist quote mines I would strongly suggest that you check the context of the quotes before posting them.

Hi Slevesque,You must not have read part of my post, so allow me to quote myself: One more time: The quote is not from a 1972 paper in Genetics titled The importance of untranslatable intermiates by Koch. The quote is from a 2000 paper in Nature titled A yeast prion provides a mechanism for genetic variation and phenotypic diversity by True and Lindquist. No, I wasn't quote mining you. In fact, I think you're quote mining yourself because you left out your own first sentence: Honestly, I had no idea how to respond to a claim that a paper incorporating the fact that random mutations accumulate in inactive genes that might one day become reactivated (something we knew long before the year 2000, raising the question why the abstract phrased it in way that makes it seem like they thought it was a new idea) was actually discussing irreducible complexity. The whole principle of irreducible complexity is that it couldn't have happened naturally and must have been carried out by a designer, and finding natural pathways would seem to work against that.--Percy

So why is that particular amino acid charged onto that particular tRNA? I think that's what he's getting at. And that IS arbitrary, at least to some degree.

While it may be arbitrary it is still tied to physical interactions which contradicts slevesque's claims. It is the physical interaction between the tRNA's and mRNA that results in the amino acid sequence. The very shape of the tRNA's is dependent on the physical interactions and sequence of the nucleotides in the tRNA.

No. If you read the last post you responded to he's saying that the codon-amino acid link is arbitrary. Which is it. The process is physical, yes, but you can't explain the coding itself in such simple terms.

The exact basis for the genetic code is still fairly open to debate. There are several distinct but not mutually exclusive lines of thought on the matter. A review paper (Bollenbach et al., 2007) which has an interesting discussion of a variety of theories on the evolution of the genetic code summarises three principle ones as ... They also go on to discuss more recent work supporting these various theories.Of particular interest to this discussion is the work of Lozupune et al. (2003) and Knight and Landweber (2000). These discuss affinities for amino acids to RNA sequences corresponding or closely resembling those of the codon (and sometimes anticodon) corresponding to that amino acid.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

That's more fun with quotes than I've seen in a long time. Thanks.

---

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

​

Real things always push back.
-William James