Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

I've just stumbled upon this thread and I'm intrigued as to where you're sticking your amino acids in your DNA. As far as I'm aware DNA isn't a long string of amino acids. I thought it was a long string of nucleotide bases, not amino acids at all and a really funny thought struck me. When I use the DNA synthesiser to make oligonucleotides and I don't provide any amino acids, I still get DNA oligonucleotides out the other end. When I do PCR and add nucleotide building blocks to my reactions, but don't add amino acids, I still get DNA produced at the end.Heck, I musta bin doing it wrong for...........oh years and years!Or maybe you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.My experience tells me it's the latter.

Er........you did, actually and I read it exactly the same way as WK and Asgara. I suggest you go back and re-read your posts and you'll see where you made this erroneous claim.You also seem to be mixing up the replication of DNA and protein synthesis. DNA replication doesn't involve transcription of DNA to messenger RNA - it's protein synthesis that requires that.I really would advise you to do a bit of reading on this before making such statements. That way your arguments might be a bit more informed and a bit less dependent on your erroneous comprehension of the subject.

While protein synthesis might be going on during DNA replication, it is not an absolute requirement of DNA synthesis. If the necessary proteins are present in sufficient quantities then DNA replication will occur without protein synthesis.in vitro, DNA synthesis occurs with absolutely no protein synthesis. Its called PCR and is a standard technique in labs the world over.Yes, in vivo certain enzymes are required to uncoil, unzip and rezip the DNA, but their synthesis doesn't have to be during replication. So, although DNA synthesis and protein replication are linked and both can occur at the same time, they are considered two different processes.In science, you have to look at systems stripped to the bare essentials if you want to understand the mechanisms involved. However, scientists are well aware that when they look at a particular stripped-down system, they're looking at a stripped-down system (mainly because they stripped it down in the first place before they started). We know that all the systems are interlinked in all sorts of ways. However we also have a basic understanding of what is going on in each of these systems and that's why we don't tend to add amino acids to our PCR reactions.If you do a search on the internet you can find molecular diagrams of amino acids and nucleotide bases and you'll see that amino acids could never take the place of purines and pyrimidines.

Hi Percy, I understand that you may be a bit concerned about the on topicness or otherwise of this, but I feel that some of the comments on DNA replication and, especially amino acids in DNA, are most definitely on topic.The topic title is "Is ID Scientific?". Quite frankly, if proponents are trying to defend their position by wittering on about amino acids being the four bases in DNA, then the answer to the question is a resounding "NO!!!"To try to take on the intricacies of the cellular systems while having serious flaws in the understanding of even small parts of the systems is like pushing jelly uphill.

Hi WK, you quoted Evopeach as saying (bold text mine)This states that Evopeach believes that without protein synthesis, replication won't happen. I merely pointed out that while proteins might be needed, their synthesis doesn't have to happen during DNA replication.As to PCR reactions I never claimed that enzymes weren't required in PCR, I claimed that the synthesis of those enzymes wasn't required. As you said yourself, you add Taq, you don't have it being synthesised in the reaction. It may seem like a minor point, but I never claimed that enzymes weren't required, just their synthesis.Every time Evopeach has mentioned the mechanism of DNA replication, mRNA and ribosomes are brought in. You yourself suggested he had a problem with confounding the two.Admin quotes Evopeach as saying then asks which suggests to me that Admin also interpret Evopeach to be saying that the processes are concurrent.To be perfectly honest, Evopeach has used jargon that he doesn't understand to try to make his points and then backpedals furiously when his mistakes are pointed out. For example another minor error is that he says It's just a minor quibble, but the ribosome reads the bases three at a time and the three bases are called a codon. Reading codons three at a time means reading nine bases at a time.I agree with you that he's just trying the old irreducibility argument, but he's doing it in such a way that he demonstrates his own shallow knowledge of the subject he expounds on.

You said You also said Are you trying to say that carbon alone of all the elements is IC and the others aren't? Surely the same applies to them. Does this mean that nitrogen has been intelligently designed? Oxygen, calcium, silicon? What about compounds like NaCl? Intelligently designed salt???????????Edited to put in missing quoteThis message has been edited by Trixie, 08-09-2005 04:47 PM

As you said and I quoted above Have you thought of removing all the hydrogen? How about nitrogen? How about phosporous? How about oxygen? If you get a different outcome then your hypothesis of carbon being unique and particular survives. If you get the same outcome your hypothesis falls flat on it's face.I predict that the outcome will be the same.

So uranium isn't an element. Glad we cleared that up. There are only five elements in the periodic table. Erm..........what are the rest of the "things" in the periodic table?How about potassium, sodium, calcium?How about iron? Sulphur? If you remove these a heck of a lot of life forms will pop their clogs.

Evopeach, how much biology and chemistry have you studied?