Posted on 11/17/2005 11:27:22 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
Liar. Where was it handy if you had to dredge it up?
Does DNA contain coded information?
WildHorseCrash ---- Your majory error here is the belief that DNA is encoded information. It is not. It is one, big, long, complex biochemical problem.
Rave on Macbeth. WHC picture follows
I had the lysine codons handy (i.e., in a near by book) when I wrote the posts. I was meaning to discuss the sequence of amino acids in proteins, but simply (and seriously) goofed the whole process up, mistaking the RNA codon chart for the amino acid sequences I was really looking for. Since I hadn't had much use for this material since I learned it many years ago in high school, I had to dredged it up in my memory in putting the post together, but did so poorly, making an error.
So you see, if I make a mistake, I have no problem owning up to it, but you, you fucking coward, continue to lie and run away. Pathetic.
Clean up your language. You are showing your intellectual poverty.
Lysine, glycine, what the heck they don't mean anything. Not to mention that lysine has 2 codons and glycine has 4. What a reading error. And you have the gall to question my reading comprehension.
WHC post 236 ----- For example, the RNA codons "GGA GGC GGG GGU" stands for "glycine,"
Does DNA contain coded information?
WildHorseCrash ---- Your majory error here is the belief that DNA is encoded information. It is not. It is one, big, long, complex biochemical problem.
Does DNA contain coded information?
WildHorseCrash ---- Your majory error here is the belief that DNA is encoded information. It is not. It is one, big, long, complex biochemical problem.
Exactly. And there is such a thing as leaving out some of the relevant features OR misrepresenting them (even if due to lack of computer cycles, or inadvertently, or whatever).
My point was not that genetic algorithms, simulated evolutionary methods, etc., are not effective. It is that when they are used as engineering tools, they are an oversimplification (and as it happens, an amplification) of what happens with biological systems in nature.
Cheers!
That’s your opinion.
Before you commence frothing at the mouth and slobbering all over yourself, recall that we are not discussing science in all its chaste and spotless virtue. We are discussing state control of science education at the elementary and secondary level. In a representative republic, you don’t get to issue a categorical edict to the appropriate governing board or commission; you get to register your vote. So, be polite, and say ‘please’ to the nice ladies and gentlemen who decide how education should be taught. You see, it’s their opinion that counts.
Ultimately, the people get to register their opinion, and in the case of Dover, the opinion of the people resulted in a clean sweep of those responsible there for educational public policy. You should be happy, but I’ll bet you aren’t. Scientists seem to think they can get both front feet in the public trough, and pay no price for the privilege. Those who bogey on a Freeper forum ought to know better.
Kansas is even more instructive. Yeah, those ignoramuses have been doing it the way it should be done for some six years now. Back in ‘99, a conservative state board decided to change the education standards to include ID. The Liberals & Moderates campaigned on the ID issue, and enough conservatives on the board were turned out so that prior standards were restored. This action fired up the conservatives and got them cracking. The conservatives campaigned hard, submitted themselves to the judgment of the people, and won back control of the board. That’s how matters of public policy should be conducted in a representative republic. That brings us up to the present. If the new policy causes problems, then the conservatives will be turned out, and a different policy will be installed. If not, then a different issue or issues will become the deciding factor. Unless, that is, some Liberal bawl-baby decides to go running to the courts, “boo-hoo hoo! those meanies won’t play fair” and gives the courts an opportunity to meddle in what should be a local affair, if we are to have government education at all.
Yes. The Kansas School Board is deciding how to define science. Let's all vote on scientific results. Shall we include spiritualism as valid science if the people say yes? How about Astrology? Lysenko, anyone?
Face it. The Kansas School Board is an embarrassment, and science by popular vote is not science.
Ha ha... Being called a fool by a Jesus-freak creationist liar is rather amusing. Dripping with irony. LOL!!
Do you really think we should? Who would do that? Not the states’ boards of education. They don’t vote on research results. They rule on the educational standards for the public schools. The teaching of science is a small part of their total responsibilities. How can you propose solutions for the problem when you won’t even frame its dimensions accurately? Not very scientific. Sounds more like the beginning of a hysterical rant.”
Shall we include spiritualism as valid science if the people say yes? How about Astrology? Lysenko, anyone?”
Yep, just what it is - an hysterical rant. I’m not a member of any board of education, but personally, I don’t think what you suggest is a very good idea. Go ahead and make a proposal to the people, but I think you’ll merely make a big joke out of yourself. It doesn’t even serve very well as a rhetorical point.
”Face it. The Kansas School Board is an embarrassment, and science by popular vote is not science.”
No more an embarrassment than yourself. Their ignorance of the theory of science is considerably less than your apparent ignorance of the theory of representative government. I say ‘apparent’ because, if you know better, and still insist on your idea of a bifurcated construction of government, where you assign responsibility to the people (send them the bill) but insist on retaining authority in your own hands, then your embarrassment is all the worse for it.
And I'm not hysterical, just amused.
I'm glad you're enjoying yourself, because you are certainly proving to be quite a court jester. Rave on Macbeth. You are still very wrong.
This is what I wrote ---- As far as the DNA is concerned, for a specific individual "A", the DNA's message is "This is the genetic make up for individual 'A'". There are subparts, such as "This describes 'adenylate cyclase 2'".
This is what you quoted. Liar yourself.
WildHorseCrash ---- And the rest of your post--your "the DNA of person A sends the message of 'this is the genetic makeup of person A'" silliness
Does DNA contain coded information?
WildHorseCrash ---- Your majory error here is the belief that DNA is encoded information. It is not. It is one, big, long, complex biochemical problem.
what's wrong with You...
you know you are not suppost to use thsoe F words on FR!
You are among mixed company and should show some kind of respect as a whole!
I am hitting the abuse button nasty man!
Clean up your language.
What is a "Jesus-freak"?
I guess that is what I appear to be saying, if the extent of your imagination gets you no further than to deny the principle of government by the consent of the governed for the sake of your own private interest, as do so many others. I know you’ll plead how important is your particular private interest, as so many others do plead, and that your interest is actually vital to the welfare of everyone, as do plead so many others about an array of interests peculiar to their own.
But, if it seems the only way to resolve what you believe to be a critically important interest in the teaching of science is to violate a critically important fundamental principle of representative government, then that sort of circumstance ought to impress you with the serious need for a reappraisal of our understanding of the relationship between government and education.
”And I'm not hysterical, just amused.”
If you find yourself amused, then the problem must not be so serious as you advertise. Or, you are expressing the condescending amusement of an elitist, sneering at his obvious inferiors.
Thankfully, at the end of the day I do think the problem will turn out to be not too serious. Most communities I'm familiar with are more sensible than the circus going on in Kansas. They recognize that science should not be subservient to ambitious clowns looking to wield power and persue crypto-religious agendas on a school board.
You are taking issue with Pythagoras and Plato, who demythologized the gods but saw geometry in nature. ID is basically a return to that basis. There is design in nature. If we look at matter, we have two choices. Is matter aware of itself or not? Since we exist, then why claim that no intelligence exists in matter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.