Linear digital codes carrying genetic information are found on only one kind of molecule—nucleic acids....
Nonsense. A code has been applied to nucleic acids to make it easier to understand the structure.
Here's water: HOH
Here's methanol: CH3OH
We can also call it: methyl-OH
"Methyl" is just a code-word for "CH3". It doesn't indicate different principles - it's just shorthand. Same thing with your supposed "digital code" in DNA. It's just a shorthand method of describing the structure of the molecule. Nothing more.
... and electromagnetic bonding principles do not explain their ordering.
For @#$#@#%$#@# sake, SHOW us how chemical bonding principles fail to explain "ordering" in nucleic acids.
... a quartz crystal has no heritable properties because it lacks serial generations to which encoded information can be passed.
And that's the only reason. The chemical principles governing a quartz crystal are identical to the principles governing nucleic acids.
Why can Hoot not understand this? Is he just being disingenuous?
I dunno. :rolleyes: This is about the fourth thread where I've tried to get through to him.
In 1972, when Nixon was re-elected, defeating McGovern, somebody quipped that, "America would rather have a smart crook than an honest fool as president." I try to take people at their word and accept that they really are as dopey as they pretend to be.
I may be a little dopey, mainly for trying to reason with you guys, but I am not disingenuous. There are simply no credible molecular biologists I know of that would deny the unambiguous biological existence of a genetic code. If either you or CS are denying it then you are doing so for reasons apart from science. You would have to be very uninformed to deny the natural existence of a genetic code, and that it is digital. But if you wanted to argue that everything is metaphor, then you could always say that genetic code is just a popular way of speaking that reflects contemporary computer concepts, or some dodge like that. I'm not saying this and neither are credible molecular biologists. We're saying that there is a real, actual, and unambiguous genetic code that engages nucleotides as digits to hold heritable information about the expression of proteins. The code has a celebrated alphabet, but it lacks syntactical meaning and therefore does not qualify as a language (according to Chomsky).
btw: What kind of proteins do rock produce? And do they pass that ability on to their little stone children?
Ringo, Let me come at this from another vantage point and explain why the video clips I linked do argue for DNA in fact being digital code. For the record (I'll say it again) the whole problem of origin was never intended by me to be part of the argument for digital code. I addressed the question of origin only as a defense of Matt P's (probably innocent) misunderstanding of the problem that confounded Dean kenyon. I did not want anyone left with the wrong impression; especially Matt P.
Quite frankly, I care more for his opinion than yours Ringo. Isn't it interesting that he remains silent. But bloody nose or not, I'm going to try and pick you.
You have made it to look as though I was addressing the wrong topic. But you have never actually made any comment whatsoever about what I presented to Hoot Mon. You've disregarded it entirely as has anyone else who wishes to challenge the case.
So let's take a deep breath and sing cumebya ( however it's spelled).
If you watch the end of the 'Harvard BioVisions' clip, or the end of clip #5 and beginning of clip #6 of Dr. Kenyons problem, you will get two differently sourced versions of the same emperical fact. I will provide the link once again for your immediate convenience: http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html Just scroll down to the BioVisions clip or the Kenyon clip, click play...
That fact, which is clearly enunciated and illustrated, is that the Ribosome translates DNA into amino acid chains.
Here is one illustration of a ribosome attached to a strand of RNA and secreting the appropriate amino acid chain based on the genetic code for that particular protein.
Here is how Wikipedia describes the ribosome's function:
A ribosome is a small, dense organelle in cells that assembles proteins. Ribosomes are about 20nm in diameter and are composed of 65% ribosomal RNA and 35% ribosomal proteins (known as a Ribonucleoprotein or RNP). It translates messenger RNA (mRNA) to build a polypeptide chain (e.g., a protein)
Question: What does a ribosome translate?
Answer: It translates the digital sequence contained in the DNA (for the specified protein) that has been 'transcibed' to an RNA messenger based upon the arrangement of four chemical digits known as A,T,C,G and delivered to the ribosome for translation. As the clips show, there is far more going on than that, so we're simplifying the argument so as to appease your appetite for clarity and specificity.
If the chemicals themselves are the code for each protein (as you keep suggesting), then we would have as as many digits as proteins. But... the fact is that there are approximately 30 thousand different known proteins based upon the arrangement of only four chemical digits.
Furthermore, the binary system of computer software contains 2 digits. The 4 digits in every organisms genetic structure equates to a 'quadnary' language (a term which does not yet exist to my knowledge, but is quite useful (Ironically, when I searched for the term, the only match that came up was the word 'quandary')) :laugh:
So... it seems to me, that if DNA is not a digital code, then nothing, including our best software, is a digital code.
It would be helpful for your position if the code in the living cell was less sophisticated... not more. But the reality of the situation (the emperical and scientific fact) is just the opposite.
I ask that you slow down for the sake of reason, and be courageous enough (like Dean kenyon) to recognize a spade for a spade. He had far more invested than you do; yet, he capitulated...
But... the fact is that there are approximately 30 thousand different known proteins based upon the arrangement of only four chemical digits.
Come on Rob, just reading this it comes out as either stupid or disingenuous.
Surely it should say ...
"But... the fact is that there are approximately 30 thousand different known proteins based upon the arrangement of sequences of lengths varying from hundreds to thousands of digits composed of four distinct chemical digits."
In your computer analogy it is like saying that because computers operate in binary they can only do 2 things. To take a non-code example it is like saying that because there are only ~118 elements in the periodic table then there can only be 118 materials. It is the combinatorial structural composition which produces different materials and similarly produces differnt protein coding sequences.
The 4 digits in every organisms genetic structure equates to a 'quadnary' language (a term which does not yet exist to my knowledge, but is quite useful (Ironically, when I searched for the term, the only match that came up was the word 'quandary'))
A term exists for base four, it is known as Quaternary.