Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Just a few questions...
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 54 (244811)
09-19-2005 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by TheLiteralist
09-19-2005 1:28 AM


Re: Common Language
OTOH, He most certainly could use the same language.
AbE: For instance, all different kinds of software are compiled into the same binary format.
Of course It could. This is why the deity idea is not falsifiable. Our deity could have done anything in any way It pleased, pretty much by definition. However, it would be a crippling falsification for the ToE if every 'kind' was written in a different language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-19-2005 1:28 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 45 of 54 (244834)
09-19-2005 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Enuf_Alredy
09-19-2005 12:47 AM


Chinese/English character sets
I know this has been stressed in several ways now but let me try yet another way.
Recombining ENGLISH letters WILL NEVER produce a CHINESE book.
Your statement is correct. However, you were attempting to compare recombining English letters into a Chinese book with recombining DNA letters to create new varieties. You were saying that English letters->Chinese was analogous to DNA->new varieties. It was an analogy.
How can mutations (recombining of the gentetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce a Chinese book)
If it wasn't meant as an analogy then your statement is irrelevant, so I assume it was.
If we look at a cat or a dog, the DNA letters 'CGA' will be translated into the amino acid Alanine, these amino acids are combined to form protiens - which are used to build organisms.
One protein is called 'cytochrome c'. You can see one DNA string that will make cytochrome c here (that is only a partial string, but it is mostly complete).
We can jumble this up, take some away, add some and we can get this , which I believe is called kinase.
Don't let me confuse you though, nobody is suggesting that cytochrome evolved into kinase, but I'm sure you can see that a bunch of letters like the first lot can be jumbled to say something very different which in turn has a massively different affect on the organism which undergoes this mutation. Imagine an organism which had a string of letters which was the same as the one for kinase, but the last letter was a 'G' rather than an 'A', and for illustrative purposes let us assume that this means absolutely nothing so the DNA doesn't get translated. All it would take would be one mutation (chaging the 'G' into an 'A') and the code goes from meaning nothing to meaning 'build kinase'.
Evolving a whole new character set (like from English to Chinese) is so unbelievably unbelievable we don't see it happen. Maybe one day it will, I don't know, but that the same language is used universally in all organsisms is good evidence of common descent. However, we can see new protien building carried out through mutations.
Some interesting reading.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 19-September-2005 02:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Enuf_Alredy, posted 09-19-2005 12:47 AM Enuf_Alredy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024