Genetics and Human Brain Evolution

No, it's not. It's hilarously incorrect. An amino acid is any molecule that contains both an amine and a carboxyl functional group. These functional groups are sort of like the pips and sockets on a Lego:in that an amine group in one amino acid is peptide bonded to the carboxyl group of another (via polymerization), forming a polypeptide chain that, after completion, folds into a functional protein shape. 20 such acids are employed in living organisms, and are specified within genes by the three-nucleotide codons that people have been talking about. Egg seems to think that those lists are actually telling him what amino acids are made of, but that's a drastic misunderstanding. The chemical structure of the 20 amino acids necessary for life can be found here: Proteinogenic amino acid - WikipediaAs you can see, no amino acid contains any nucleotides.Amino acids are the essential structural building blocks of proteins. This is such an essential, basic fact of biology that it's staggering that someone could get it so wrong and yet be so sure he's right. I look forward to the rest of his short EvC career with great interest.

You prove them right when you say things as ignorant as "amino acid sequence codes for proteins".I mean you can't even seem to read your diagram right. That sequence of amino acids down there at the bottom? That's the protein. I mean it's even labeled "growing protein chain."Nucleotides arranged in triplet codons specify amino acids in sequence; amino acids condensed together with peptide bonds (amine to carboxyl) form proteins. No, they don't. They specify amino acids, via the mechanism of tRNA. Amino acids are produced at other places in the cell, or aren't produced at all - they're provided by the diet of the organism. (That's why there's 9 essential amino acids that, as a human, you're required to injest from food. Your cells are unable to produce them de novo.) You could only shut down the reading frame if a substitution turned a amino-specifying codon into a stop codon. Barring that, which is fairly unlikely, the reading frame continutes. A deletion or an addition can shift the frame by one base, but those mutations are counteracting - an insertion later in the sequence can restore a reading frame shifted by an earlier deletion, and vice-versa. No. The nucleotides (A,G,C,T) make up the code. The amino acids they code for make up the protein. Amino acids are the fundamental structural units of proteins, when they're joined together (amine to carboxyl) with peptide bonds. Folding polypeptide chains produce the spacially-determined active sites that allow proteins to catalyze chemistry within the cell. Until your misunderstandings are corrected, debate is impossible. We can't have a debate with you until you know what you're talking about. No, no thanks are necessary - it's our pleasure to educate you.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

No, amino acids are condensed into proteins via peptide bonding. That's the problem here - you don't seem to understand what amino acids are. Amino acids don't have any codons. Codons specify amino acids via the mechanism of tRNA, but amino acids are not made out of codons or nucleotides. Amino acids do not contain nucelotides. The definitive characteristic of an amino acid is that it possesses an amine group at one end and a carboxyl group at the other. Amine and carboxyl groups are complimentary and so two amino acids can combine via a condesative reaction to form a peptide bond between them. This doesn't make a lick of sense. If you remove a codon, you simply remove an amino acid from the protein product of the gene. You don't suddenly "get nucleotides", whatever that means, because nucleotides have been there all along - that's what DNA is made from, nucleotides.Try and repeat it after me: genes have codons. Codons are made of nucleotides. Codons specify amino acid sequences. Amino acids connected in sequence form a protein.It's really not that difficult. Can you explain the problem you're having with this concept? There's nothing semantic about what we're talking about. You continue to assert that proteins are encoded in amino acids, and this is patently false. Amino acids are not molecules of sequence storage; that's what nucleotides do. Amino acids are structural molecules - they're the structural components of proteins. Indeed. This is such a basic principle, which you're so quick to rattle off, that it's amazing to the rest of us that you don't apparently have any idea what it means.Let me walk you through the process. DNA is transcripted into mRNA, a single-stranded nucleotide sequence that is passed off to the ribosome. At the ribosome, each set of three nucleotides (called a codon) is matched to the complimentary nucleotide sequence (the anticodon) on an aminoacylated (or "charged") tRNA molecule. When the tRNA lines up on the RNA, the tRNA's amino acid binds to the carboxyl group of the elongating polypeptide chain. The deaminoacylated tRNA is released, and the ribosome moves three nucleotides down the mRNA, where the process (called "elongation") is repeated until the entire protein unit has been generated.It's almost impossible to believe that you could be getting it so wrong and yet be so determined that you're right. It's possible we're simply miscommunicating here, but absolutely none of the descriptions of the process you've offered bear any resemblance to how proteins are actually stored and expressed from genetic material.

Heck, we're still waiting for you to admit that codons are comprised of nucleotides, and that amino acids don't encode proteins, proteins are made of amino acids...

You know what? Cram it up your ass. We promote a scientific theory because it's the theory best supported by the evidence.Period. If you think that makes us serial-killers and pedophiles, that somehow we lack "moral fiber", you're an idiot.You don't know any of us, NJ. You know absolutely nothing about us, and for you to level an accusation of immorality is a base slander, deeply offensive in every way. And the only reason you get away with it is because of the lax standards creationists are explicitly held to. I'll probably get suspended for telling you this, but it's worth it for you to understand how inappropriate your comments are.And the fact that you'll be allowed to perpetuate these disguisting ad hominem while the rest of us will accept suspension or worse for defending ourselves will be all but ignored by you and Buzzsaw and Faith and all the rest of the ridiculous cut-and-run creationists who throw a huge pity party at the slightest suggestion that they be held to some kind of standard of civil conduct.I thought you had some potential to turn out to be a decent human being. Turns out you're as arrogant and presumptuous as the rest of the know-nothing nutballs. Now, if you'll excuse me, apparently I'm going to go eat a baby or something.

Oh. So when you leveled a sweeping charge of amorality against your opponents, you were doing so from a position of absolute ignorance.Gotcha. That doesn't exactly make it better, now does it?

That's an outright lie. I've never said anything of the sort.This is your "moral fiber"? Lying about people? Because we're not liars, like you? It's hard for you to imagine someone who acts morally because it's the right thing to do, not because they're afraid somebody bigger and tougher will punish them for it?If you have to be bullied into doing the right thing, exactly how moral are you? Simply judging by the fact that you've got no problem telling outright lies about me, not very, I'd say. Oh, I'm sorry. I keep forgetting that I'm an atheist, and as such, I should just shut the hell up when arrogant theists like yourself decide they're going to accuse us of being immoral. How silly of me to forget that I have absolutely no right to defend myself from sucrrilous charges. God forbid a Christian be held to any kind of standard of civil conduct; no, expecting such a person to be polite is tantamount to an infringment of their constitutional rights.I'm sorry, NJ, but I just looked up the First Amendment and I don't see anything about a right to be a pompous douchebag whom nobody can criticize. Can you point it out to me? I did like you. I thought you were a person who, even though he had a lot of stupid ideas about atheists, could be persuaded that we're also people, too.So why, apropos of nothing, you chose to level offensive, scurrilous charges that atheists "lack moral fiber", is a mystery to me. I really thought we were civil participants in a debate. What on Earth did any of the rest of us do to be so insulted by you?