Apparently you can't read because I specifically talk about base pairs and bases regarding DNA as anyone can see.I never suggested that you could would or should attempt to make an amino acit function as a base pair in DNA... please show me where.I was speaking always and in particular about the optical purity of the different sorts of molecules that are unique to the various functions they carry out.Amino acids chains folding from their one dimentional form after being built are all left handed resulting in left handedness in the proteins they make when folded into the 3-d form.That is one molecule type proteins that do not in life processes ever show up made from r form amino acids not individually or collectively.Then agian all the sugars that are utilized are dextro form, absolutely.The point was as stated you will not see mixtures even substitutions of these mandated forms of the opposite handedness in the differnt functional molecules.If you are telling me that base pairs in DNA are not amino acids I am lost as to why you felt the need. Certainly not on any post I made.If I was unclear that's my problem but please don't attribute non-statements to me and then redicule me for things I never said... at least not intentionally.

Actually I was attempting to make the valid point concerning the separation of D and L forms by functional type of molecule in the entire replication process of the dna molecule,the human genome by using hyperbolic language.That is, when I have responses such as "I am confused as to what replication you am referring to" when I discuss error rates, speed, reliability, size and so on as 6 billion base pairs in seven hours and reference the bBook Exons, Introns and Talking Genes by Wills in that same post.... one wonders.As to whether there is transcription of the bases after the division of DNA into two strands, sense and antisense, by a protein (RNA polymerase)which uncoils the helix. The RNA polymerase is also acting on the sense strand and spining out a strand of mrna, note mrna. It is transferring information from the DNA to the ribosome so that a particular protein called helicase can be made it being absolutely vital to the replication of DNA. Helicase of course is that enzyme which separates the DNA strands for replication and along with DNA polymerase asists in the formation of a new DNA strand from free floating bases. Topoisomerase another enzyme/protein is holding tension on the yet to be unwound DNA a mechanical chore if you will.Now where do the helicase and topoisomerase come from...I know the protein building process and so could not occur without that also happening.Now for the kicker... there is in life the linear sequential way of thinking and then there is the systematics way of thinking about mutiprocessing activities occuring simultaneously with materials being produced transported, produced, tagged repaired and in the case of a healthy human cell it numbers in the oodles (technical term)as all of these events in a sense separate and ordered yet simultaneous and related in time and in space all within the cell.So when you say DNA copying is not dependent on mrna transscription and protein synthesis via ribosomes ... that is the linear model.Remember my Masters following my BS in Engr Physics was in ... you guessed it... Systems Engineering. Thats the thinking method which views the entirety of the cellular mitosos, replication and all those internal processes as a coordinated multiprocessed unitized activity.So it rerally makes no sense to say this part doesn't involve that part or activity; see they all depend on each other in a closed loop feedback sense if you will.I recommend "Systems Engineering by Chesnutt" its the oldie but goodie and will I think really assist your thinking on these more complex planes.

Since 1973 I have supported the principal people involved in bringing to America's attention the obvious and dramatic chasm between Neo-Darwinianism and scientific reality on nealy every plane. After some 33 years and a few hundred dollars, a lot of reading of the related scientific literature, discussions with technically trained people of reputation, biblical scholars of international reputation, attending several debates and spending time evaluating the various evolutionary strongholds on the web since 1988; I at last see overwhelming evidence that the labor of those so involved and their support bearing fruit.I am encouraged and elated to have seen the growth of the Discovery Institute and the overwhelming acceptance and financial support of the organization.One has only to review their board, fellows, senior fellows and the list of 400 scientists and technically trained people of reputation who support in principle their deep concern about the credibility of the Neo-Darwinian school of thought. Not just any 400 people but people who perform teaching in many many major universities and research there and then publish in peer reviewed journals.It is especially encouraging to see names like Microsoft in the credentials of those in positions of influence and support for this scholarly organization.Of course, given the emphasis on the informational aspects of biology and life as we see it and experience it this is not surprising.At long last, the critical mass has arrived.Evopeach

So long as you define science in your terms to fit the result you want and exclude allother ideas contrary to your own.

For you its the Dick, Jane and Spot school of reading.If systematics and such are over your head just say so and I'll attempt to think in terms of abcdefg.Do you also prefer CPM on an 8080 from 1978 for your operating system... much easier to understand.. no nasty multiprocessing or multitasking to even worry about.The cell of course is multitasking and multiprocessing and involves message based coordination of same

In 1981 I purchased an interest in a franchised PC store and the most mfgt. were still running CPM on the 8080 platform.The 8086 was later and introduced by Altos running a couple of the only multiuser operating systems that were spinoffs from Dick Pick's work "Pick". None were multiprocessing but could multitask.CPM and MPM were about finished by 1983 what with Apple and Microsoft emerging as the players.Oh and you're a CPM linear thinker from the evo world with his head up his butt so far you can't see daylight.We'll just call you NorthStar from the bancrupt PC Co from the late 70's and very early 80's.

I am used to thinking about how all the parts of a system work together and how in many cases in the real world such systems are essentially IC.To be sure my experience in aircraft avionics and fire control systems followed by MIS, IT, OR, finance etc. are not yours whether physics, archeology, biology or chemistry but whether you believe me or not my experience is that you can never understand the complexity of a system by concentrating on individual parts assuming that bench stocks, WIP, transport facilities will just be there for the piece under investigation.In the case of manufacturng and administrative systems it is best to use "LEAN" principles and minimize interrelated waiting times, extra "floor" inventory, WIP excesses, feed stock inventories, etc.It is remarkable then that in the human cell, the most complex system man has yet encountered and still unfolding, that there appears to be a "push" system in place, start and stop signals etc. to achieve the 6 billion base pair replcation in less than 8 minutes while experiencing only about 1-2 errors in the replication.That exceeds the human quality goal of Six Sigma 3.4 errors/million operations.If you choose to continue to ignore my rationale for using hyperbolic examples and systems thinking to support yur claims of my not studying the subject sufficiently so be it.In my next post I will attempt to posit a rational for ICS and ID as a discussion starter in good faith.Evopeach

Let us posit a biological system with a defined set of functions that are both necessary and sufficient to provide supportative operations within a larger system and an interbreeding population of same. The functionality might be more than is necessary at the time and under the conditions but certainly is sufficient for the needs at hand to survive and to promote stasis in numberes through reproduction at a minimum.Through rigerous scientific examination involving several discliplines over a long period of time we find that there are 46 functionalities that relate to boundary conditions/relationship intersystem and 460 that relate to intrasystem functionalities, all appearing to be necessary for long term sustainable performance. of the system.I. It is likely that one can develop a large number of possibe assembly steps that result in the observed system but only one was used for reasons that are not certain and not at all clear.II. Suppose I posit that the system is IR and thus cannot have arisen by any method because it would have functioned so poorly or not at all that the system and the population would likely have ceased to exist period.III. What is the obligation of the falsifier in I to show that the precursor system(s) are each one workable and realizable in an experimental fashion backstep by backstep until the sub-system has no necessary function that is "required" by the larger system.III. If I remove a component that I can demonstrate leaves a workable system then all the interactions with other components must be shown to substitue either with a simpler version, a different still available component or that in the prior state all or most of the components were simultaneously less demanding of the function removed if at all.IV. Repeating this backwards is a huge task for complex systems that is obvious but that is the only fair falsification of an IC system. But it is mandatory as demnstrating on or even a few backward steps is insufficient to demonstrate efficacy of the total staged proposal.V. It should be rejected that a simple statement of how a viable series of precursors could have come about as a verbal rejourner for such is never permitted in scientifice falsification experiments... iii and IV are required.The person proposing is entitled to maintain their position of IC until it is falsified as above.

Remember I named the topic ID and ICS.In biological life the theory of ICS states that taking away a component of a system that will not function so as to meet the needs of intra and inter system and their components at the same level of competancy before the removal of that component is an irreducible complex system.The corrolary is that every ICS in biological life is Intelligently Designed but the reverse is not necessarily true.Example: The "snurps" in the human cell cut out bad copies of base pair sequences single and double stranded and repair same to restore the correct sequences. If all the repair enzymes are removed cells would succomb to such frailities quite quickly and in their operation would not contribute to the formation of correct proteins etc. and perhaps cease to exist more quickly than otherwise .... failing.Thus could well not be IC becoming dead or useless more quickly is not non-functional.But if we remove from the human prokarotic cell the selectively semi-permeable membrane it fails catastophically, the cell is immediately non-functional and being ubiquitious the system is dead also. That would constitute IC and since there is no precursor that can be demonstrated operational in the same way absent the cell membrane by microevolutionary processes. Thus the cell did not evolve and was then created by an ID. Without a cell membrane the components of the protein synthetic apparatus could not be held together ... a plethora of simultaneously occurring catastrophic failures.IRS and ID is a separately proposed theory of how like began and how it functions, surely you do not perceive that these ideas are somehow historically post darwin... that would be a foolist position indeed.It is not a response to darwinianism, it preceeded it by centuries, is an alternate theory and thus is not required to "go first".These things are of course follow naturally from my initial premise several posts back where I laid out such with predictive and falsifying pieces as well.that where there is life there is "informational content" in its design and function. Where there is no infornational content .. there is no life, biologically speaking.Evopeach

Actually ID and ICS is a restatement of propositions antecedent to evolutionary theory by several thousand years.Evolutionary theory has been for a hundred years proposing and suggesting but of course not directly illustrating in the laboratory the possible paths by which nearly every extant species has arrived via the mechanism of mutation and natural selection. I will have no trouble giving you samples from the several thousands of evolutionary publications purporting to do just that.So why pick out those which by other qualified people are proposed to be IC and ID to draw the line at all that work and effort.. seems rather coincidental to me.Now as to the several responses about the foolishness of following a path to its conclusion .. that is what scientists do every day .. exhaustive investigation until the hypothesis and its conclusions are increasingly confirmed by the results. Then it can rightly be called a theory, always remaining subject to the one experiment that falsifies it.Yes it is true that if a system is reducible and still functional that one can continue to degrade it in steps until that is no longer true or the system is not needed in the context of evolutionary change and decent. It is perhaps the only yet proposed method of falsification darwin himself proposed though apparently no one in that camp today thinks such falsification possibilities need be explored...a uniquness of this theory from all others in every other field currently extant. Most sciences have people whose mission in life is to challenge the dominant view and pursue it with vigor... but I suppose that's for those other guys like Einstein who wasn't apparently satisfied with Newton's theory of gravitation, though it was capable of explaining mechanics for all observeable processes.I don't think anyone was fooling around with the perihelian of Mercury until long after special relativity was on the books.Now I commiserate with anyone who puts biology, ID and ICS in the context of Alien searches never suggested by IDers .. thats simply a logical fallacy, at best.Evopeach

Form over substance I see... hmmmm.SO apparently either your theory is not subject to investigation and falsification and even if the method was orioginally stated by darwin himself and it was ... we are not concerned with whether our theory is true and we don't intend to waste our time with such a silly activity. If anyone has a doubt about our theory that's their problem and they can perform the work. One would have thought that darwin would not have suggested this precise form of falsification unless he gave it full and complete acknowledgement as the principal method f of such. And I suspect that he would not have been so intimidated and frightened by IC investigations since it was his proposal of falsification as to avoid all such self directed activity."If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" - darwin himself in Origin of Species.
One would think the community would be most interested in the theories proven efficiacy with your claim about it guiding all scientific progress and seek constantly to insure its rightness less some error in its name result in terrible consequences.Well the D.I. with 400 top scientific people covering many discliplines I guess will be doing your homework for you in due course what with unlimited funding amd exposure, certain court changes on the horizon and all. It is sometimes best to do your own work rather than fighting all such inquirey. I suggest that their "careful and deliberate" reaxamination of the tenets of the evolutionary paradigm will involve ID, ICS and falsification.Evopeach

Sorry eukarotic cell

Totally Off Topic rant devoid of meaning. Please do not respond to this message.

The Evo Circumlocution meter is pegged as it has been for decades.Its Darwins theory, its his idea of falsifiability name one other theory which says oh we don't have to experiment to see if this should be falsified and abandoned ... we'll just assert its true, its popular with our team, it is strictly naturalistic and very, very flexible as to adjusting to any and all possible observations, non-repeatable in most aspects and we can yell louder than most people, intimidate any calves that stray from the herd and control their career paths , publishing, degreed candidacies, etc. (see Ohio State McCartheism in full bloom ).But I sort of like the way its turning out though a long time coming.Those Microsoft early retirees ($$$$$$$$$$) and others on the DI's board and the 400 well placed scientists so affiliated .. I am please to let them carry out the work after my modest efforts in the last three decades. I just feel so confident in their abilities.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-08-2005 03:24 PM

Totally Off Topic rant devoid of meaning. Please do not respond to this message.

The old we don't do origins around here .. after a hundred years of investigation into the origin of life in thousands of lab experiments heralded in biological journals, biology testbooks ad finitum, or ad nauseum maybe.I am pleased to have supported the team that by exposing the total, utter and complete failure of evolutionary scientists to demonstrate how the first cell ( by definition irreducibly complex because no form of life preceeded it and it was the simplest workable replicatable life viable and stable and such)came into being via the scientific method in repeatable lab conditions and that such efforts have, according to the members of this and allied forums, caused the unparalleled mass retreat of the evolutionary establishment from that unsupportable illogical position on which they have invested so much time and resource.Of course its comforting to see your ready admission that a cell absent the membrane is not viable and to jump back to that first cell. But now if other processes, unnamed, unknown, unpostulated , non-evolutionary in nature and purely imaginary are somehow responsible for the first cells creation..... is that the same as Father Raven?This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-08-2005 03:24 PM

Actually if the source could be shown to be characteristics of chemistry alone in a lab experiment, repeatable and substantiated then that would falsify my hypothesis since science parsimoniously picks natural causes and rejects supernatural ones when a natural one is explanatory and demonstrable.The real is that no one anywhere at any time has managed to demonstrate sh chemical predestination