Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code

Hi WS-JW,You seem to be a little bit confused. First you (correctly) point out that matter does not think or have concepts, then you (incorrectly) claim that in order to "get anything out" of the genetic code, "meaning" has to be applied to it, and "it" must know what to do.You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.Of course this is all a bit of a red herring, since a cursory reading of an introductory genetics textbook will inform you that the genetic code does not rely on any form of interpretation but simply on the physical affinity between codons on the messenger RNA molecule and anticodons on the transfer RNA molecule. This physical affinity is based on nothing more than the physical tendency of complementary nucleotides to form hydrogen bonds. Since each tRNA is also attached to a specific amino acid, adjacent amino acids corresponding to adjacent codons on the mRNA come into close proximity in the ribosome where they are catalysed to form a growing polypeptide.If you look up the details of this process (goole "gene translation") you will find no mention of concepts such as thinking, knowing or meaning. It's simply a series of chemical reactions (albeit a complicated one). Indeed it is only you who seems to be mentioning such concepts in the context of gene translation. How strange. I don't see what that has to do with evolution. Hmmm.... I don't think the analogy is helping you to make your point. Could you explain it without the analogy? What is it about reversible reactions that makes life impossible?

Where the hell did the topic go? I thought you wanted to discuss the "meaning" of the genetic code. Do you accept that DNA translation involves no semantic understanding on the part of the cell, now? Using the rules of syntax and grammar it may be possible to arrange these words into meaningful sentences. But maybe not. That might be why nobody thinks such entities arose by chance. My working hypothesis is that they arose through an evolutionary process, not by chance. What is your hypothesis - that they arose through supernatural intervention? Why is that more likely or better in explaining the origin of the cell than chance, exactly? What science? What good stuff? Can't things that break down rapidly be separated? Why not? I don't think I'd exactly claim that we are educated... What a silly idea. Whose is it? Please, please don't speak for me. I have never claimed to see design in nature. I don't see it. Why don't you give me an example of something that looks designed, and tell me which of its features are diagnostic of design? I don't agree with Dawkins' claim that we see "illusory" design. Personally, I don't see any kind of design. Who are you to say that the origin of life occurred only once? There is no reason to think that we may not find independent origins of life on other planets, nor that we may not one day create some kind of life in the lab. And none of that is relevant to the sciences of chemistry and physics that focus on questions of the origin of life - and which conduct repeatable experiments on the subject despite your insistence that they cannot do so. The Urey-Miller experiment, even if you were correct in finding that it did not support a natural origin of life, is one example of such a repeatable experiment.