Posted on 12/10/2009 8:12:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
David Queller and Joan Strassmann, evolutionary biologists at Rice University, recently proposed a new way to describe what makes an organism a unified whole. They defined an organism as an entity made up of parts that cooperate well for an overall purpose, and do so with minimal conflict. But how do parts like these get together, and where does purposeful behavior come from?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
This from a guy who's spelling with a TWO letter alphabet - ones and zeros !...ROTFLMAO !
Sorry camel, although the Temple of Darwin scientists aren’t comfortable with the implications, they have known that DNA is a digital code going all the way back to Watson and Crick:
Dr Matt Ridley, author of Genome and Nature Via Nurture said: “Francis Crick made not one but many great scientific discoveries.
“He found that genes are digital codes written on DNA molecules, he found that the code is written in three-letter words and he was instrumental in cracking the code.
“Any one of those things would have got him into the scientific pantheon. Discovering all three places him alongside Newton, Darwin and Einstein.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3937475.stm
Okay, you got me. I forgot completely about mules.
:-)
So it is your contention that the zeros and ones are doing the spelling?
I’m not an evo, and not a theist, but I don’t buy the digital nature of DNA as an information carrier. It’s direct chemical behavior may be digital, or at least determined chemically (which is not quite the same as digital). See, in digital operations, the same digital code always produces the same results. DNA seems to work that way in some very small scale cases, but completely fails in large scale cases. Clones are never identical, neither are “identical” twins.
Perhaps if I say what I mean is that DNA does not digitally determine what a cell does the way a digital program determines what an image will be on a computer screen would be clearer. I don’t doubt the “digital” aspects of the chemical nature of DNA, but know it is not a digital program that determines an organism’s total nature.
Hank
Again, you point to an opinion of an analogy. If you had passed Jr High science, you wouldn’t be making these grave errors in understanding.
See what I mean? LOL!!!
Good one.
“Okay, you got me. I forgot completely about mules.”
I think you were concentrating on the fact that an organism is distinguished from non-organisms by the fact of their “life,” and of course one characteristic of life is the ability to reproduce—without which, there would be no more life.
Unless you are Evo of course, in which case you would believe it could start up all over again, all by itself. Though I’m not a theist, one of the reasons I could never accept evolution is that fact about life—it only comes from other life. Just once demonstrate that life can “start up” by itself, then I will have listen to the other evo arguments.
Hank
==See, in digital operations, the same digital code always produces the same results.
That all depends, doesn’t it? If the genome is comprised of multiply systems, then DNA can be interpreted in different ways by each system. And that seems to be the case, because the same stretches of DNA (and, as we are finding, any part thereof) can have multiple functions. That seems to suggest that DNA is polyfunctional, and therefore polyconstrained, which would render evolution via random mutations impossible.
Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, but they didn't beak the "genetic code" It was known that the ratios of bases to each other were related and that there were only four bases. They figured out how it fit together.
The code for what codons corresponded to what amino acids was done by Khorana (another Nobel winner I have heard lecture in person) and many others almost 10 years later. What bases correspond to binding sites for proteins that interact with DNA and RNA have been determined over the years and can still be discovered today. We don't know every protein a cell makes.
I have even seen the actual data Khorana wrote down. There was a traveling Smithsonian exhibit in town that had various scientific historic apparatuses and notebooks. Khorana's spread sheet (back when they were paper) was on display. See, part of getting an advanced degree in a scientific field is learning the history of the discoveries.
Show an an example of what you mean by polyfunctional.
I remember very very very few (less than 10) examples of overlapping gene sequences. There may be more found recently, but I doubt it.
Exactly!
-----
Unless you are Evo of course, in which case you would believe it could start up all over again, all by itself. Though I’m not a theist, one of the reasons I could never accept evolution is that fact about life—it only comes from other life. Just once demonstrate that life can “start up” by itself, then I will have listen to the other evo arguments.
I agree.
Small scale changes to an organism caused by it's environment, I can see.
Major events, like becoming a completely different organism or appearing suddenly from nothing is something I never understood the logic of.
Species evolve into new species by the small scale changes to its germ-line DNA over long time scales. The new species is not that different from its recent ancestors. It isn’t “Poof!”
Actually you can look at all organism (yes including humans) as vessels to insure that the DNA is replicated. The DNA, mutated through time is what is immortal.
Things are really looking up for young age creationists these days :o)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2404674/posts
I didn't think that there was any 'poof' involved in the evolution of species, and I perfectly realize the time-line involved.
My point was questioning the idea that there was NO life, then POOF! there WAS life.
Another false conclusion based on an inadequate observation.
Epic Fail, again.
No life, chemical reactions, chain reactions, proto life, life.
(around a billion years worth of trial and error included)
Now that wasn’t so hard.
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.