DNA Translation Has Codes Upon Codes

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | December 17, 2007

[GodGunsGuts]

The DNA code is protected by another code, and is read with a machine that reads a third code. This is an emerging picture from ongoing research into DNA translation, as reported in Science...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Thumper1960]

Yup.

It began as related in Genesis.

[puroresu]

Now, now, you know that science is just a step or two away from explaining everything. :-)

Isn’t it amazing how we keep finding that things are more complicated than we ever imagined?

[allmendream]

What did I say that was offensive? I pointed out that your source cannot differentiate between transcription and translation. It is you that are calling me a pagan and saying I worship a man and not Christ as Lord; it is this kind of religious attack I find offensive. As well as your continued use of religion as a slur. Science is not a religion, yet you treat it as an apostate religion whose adherents need to be frog marched off to prison.

[B-Chan]

That’s kind of you to say. Thanks.

[hinckley buzzard]

Isn’t it amazing how we keep finding that things are more complicated than we ever imagined?

"The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes,

Hills peep o'er hills, and Alps on Alps arise!"

[grey_whiskers]

Kitzmas is the anniversary, December 20, of the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision that sent intelligent design packing

Could've caused more heartburn if they had announced the decision on the winter solstice.

Any relation to "Fitzmas" btw? ;-)

Journalists tend to think and write in lemming-like alliterative displays.

Full Disclosure: translation vs. transcription? Anyone with a website to describe this? 'Tis past my bedtime again and I can't remember the difference.

Cheers!

[Stultis]

A wide range of philosophical beliefs about the nature of life, biochemistry, or other factors could lead to the same results.

Maybe they "could" in theory. (A theory that no antievolutionist has ever taken the trouble to lay out in detail, or even coherently outline, but which instead is invoked as mere possibility, as you do here, with wide arm-waving and airy assertion.) But the point is, since the advent of modern biochemistry and molecular biology, it's never been done in practice, or even discernibly attempted.

Against this hundreds of papers are published every year representing original research conducted on the basis of assumptions of or inferences from evolution.

You defending evolution by arguing from ignorance and speculation is a pretty common practice though.

Actually I'm arguing from results.

I'll be interested when antievolutionists have some results, when there's ANY indication that the employment of non-evolutionary assumptions has proven fruitful in generating new knowledge via original research.

All you've come up with here is more arm-waving. "Ah, gee, look at how complex these systems are. They're too complex to be the product of evolution." But if that argument were valid it would apply to complex systems that we already knew about. As to how some non-evolutionary theory accounts for the particular facts in this case, or any other, you got nothing.

[GodGunsGuts]

==What did I say that was offensive?

LOL!

[GodGunsGuts]

==I pointed out that your source cannot differentiate between transcription and translation.

It couldn’t be a simple matter of clarification. It had to be ignorance. I could be no other way.

[GodGunsGuts]

==It is you that are calling me a pagan and saying I worship a man and not Christ as Lord

When you take what most Christians have believed about the Bible for millenia and call it “garbage,” and then set up a mysterious impersonal force and credit it with the creative powers of God Himself, I call that paganism. You won’t even entertain the idea that the universe and everything in it is intelligently designed, let alone Young Earth Creationism. If you wish to publicly deny God’s creation while professing to be a Christian, that is your God-given prerogative. I’m not even saying it is essential to salvation. But don’t expect me to keep silent about it either.

[UCANSEE2]

....Now, what was this thread about.

Pardon me for saying, but you two (and others) seem to have gotten way off the subject.

[GodGunsGuts]

Not really. Although, I will admit things got a tad personal.

[GodGunsGuts]

PS It would appear Creation Evolution Headlines clarified the language re: transcription/translation. Happy?

[GodGunsGuts]

PSS And speaking of getting back on topic, are your ready to acknowledge that when it comes to transcription/translation, scientists are indeed finding “codes upon codes”?

[JCEccles]

The paradox of intelligence canvassing the cosmos and declaring with absolute Dawkinsian authority: “I discern no evidence of intelligence.”

[allmendream]

No, I actually believe the universe was INTELLIGENTLY designed not INCOMPETENTLY designed. I think GOD created the universe to be governed by natural law, and set up a system of forces and particles that made the creation of stars and planets and the evolution of life inevitable, without the creator having to micromanage. I.D.; which I call ‘Incompetent Design’ posits that the mechanism of mutation and natural selection that is a inherent feature of the life that HE created is somehow insufficient and HE must intervene to patch up HIS somehow shoddy creation.

So your really saying that either I believe what you believe about a 6,000 year old universe, or an Incompetent Designer or I am not in the community of faith or among the saved? Are you also claiming that this is what most Christians have believed about the Bible for millenia? Sorry but you are as incorrect about this as everything else.

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
St. Thomas Aquinas

And your source is not just unclear to its audience about the difference between translation and transcription, reading what they wrote it is obvious they know little about either and have confused the two in both the body of the text and the title. So your sources are apparently about as knowledgeable about Science as you, they hate and despise it, think Biologists should be frog marched off to prison, and think Science is a heretical religious belief - your aforementioned ‘Church of Darwin’. What next? Burning at the stake?

[fortunecookie]

I’ve long wondered if DNA is serial in nature. Life seems to prefer harmonics over serial tones. I’d be willing to bet that DNA is more like a Bach fugue — a rich, contrapuntal array of complex chords — than it is like a simple tune picked out note by note.

Bump! Great analogy! Anyone, like me, who has played Bach is now imagining such a piece in a whole new way! Harmonic tones and the complex math underlying it, mirroring the complex math uncovered in classical music and most music. And considering that Bach was relatively limited in terms of writing one piece at a time using materials that seem almost primitive these days (ink pen, no DVD or Ipod or computer), I imagine the DNA to be like many Bach pieces strung together and/or interwoven. Wow.

[allmendream]

There is no topic. IF there are codes upon codes then translate the code for me. The only actual “code” in DNA is that a triplet codon specifies an amino acid. That code I can translate for you and have before. It is called the Universal Code of Genetics.

The Science behind the stupid headline about Translation has to do with Transcription and not Translation. The two are not transcription/translation; one takes place in the cell nucleus the other way out in the cytoplasm or endoplasmic reticulum and they are not similar processes except in both being complex and having multiple levels of control. The enzyme that makes an RNA transcript from a DNA template has phosporylation sites. These are common features of proteins and control their binding to other proteins or their activity state. On RNA polymerase these phosporylation sites control which transcription factors (proteins that bind to the promoter region of a gene and recruit RNA polymerase to make an RNA to get made into a protein out of the gene) the RNA polymerase will preferentially interact with.

For example. Phosporylation state A would mean that RNA polymerase would bind to Transcription factors in subset A but also Z; activating the genes in subset A and Z. In Phosphorylation state B RNA polymerase would not bind to the transcription factors in subset A, but only subset B and also Z (Z genes apparently always need to be active).

It is a very interesting finding, and has to do with TRANSCRIPTION control, any talk of ‘codes’ is sensationalism for selling the Science to journalists who only understand very simple things. Creationists then read the Journalists translation of a Scientist talking about transcription and make a big headline for their credulous readers that says “DNA Translation Has Codes Upon Codes”. So translate the code for me if you can, otherwise it isn’t a ‘code’ it is just yet another level of control for the actual code that is there; namely “AUG codon -> Methionine”, etc.

[DoctorMichael]

The Designers have been here! I read it on the Internet and the Bible says so too!

Lets all get together and get this into our Godless Public School System as a viable alternative to what the Godless Evilutionists profess!!!!!!!!

http://www.rael.org/rael_content/rael_summary.php

Who's with me?

		LANGUAGE