tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post1225279387228384122..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: DNA Rules of the Road and IncredulityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75182637182821103372010-06-05T05:03:51.348-07:002010-06-05T05:03:51.348-07:00Hanno writes:
"In the case of Junk DNA, ID h...Hanno writes:<br /><br />"In the case of Junk DNA, ID has already scored one point, predicting before the fact that it will have function."<br /><br />You might want to read this brief history of the concept of junk DNA. You'll find that ID is a latecomer to the party regarding suggesting that junk DNA had function. And ID consistently gets it wrong when it asserts that the theory of evolution requires that junk DNA have no function. Personally, I question how ID can claim to predict all or most junk DNA to have function without making a very basic assumption about the nature of the designer, something ID theorists continually insist ID doesn't do. <br /><br />The link is here: <br /><br />http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2007/09/junk-dna-let-me-say-it-one-more-time/<br /><br />And a sample: <br /><br />"You can tell someone who knows very little about the science or history of “junk DNA” when they make one or more of the following claims: 1) All scientists have always thought it was all totally irrelevant to the organism. 2) New evidence is suggesting that it is all functional. 3) “Darwinism” led to the assumption that non-coding DNA is non-functional. The opposite is true in each case."Allopatrikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11569878194858225554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12922921788105672052010-06-03T12:10:36.257-07:002010-06-03T12:10:36.257-07:00Fantastic web site,thanks.
"Let's try a ...Fantastic web site,thanks.<br /><br />"Let's try a different experiment. Let's set up a computer to simulate the observed evolutionary mechanisms of small ..."<br /><br /><br /><br />Fair idea , lets use my compuer in the bag when it self assembles.<br /><br />Enough talking,lets keep sloshing.<br />I need beer!Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11180184563416248302010-06-03T10:58:31.795-07:002010-06-03T10:58:31.795-07:00Eugen said...
I will try not to make claims b...<i>Eugen said...<br /><br /> I will try not to make claims but see if there is any sense here.<br /><br /><br /> I have lots of electronic components at home and at my work desk so<br /> lets make computer(or something) in the bag.<br /><br /> Lets fill 30% of the bag with tiny logic gates(simple rules for electron flow) and somehow keep them floating.Than attach little magnets to gates so they can self assemble ( sipmle rules ). Also,lets put small batteries in the bag and attach little magnets to them as well. Put in there tiny memory chip,too( lets not forget little magnets ).<br /><br /> Slosh the bag.<br /><br /> I wonder how would all this self assemble?<br /><br /> I may be practical but I'm not trying this experiment</i><br /><br />Let's try a different experiment. Let's set up a computer to simulate the observed evolutionary mechanisms of small random variation filtered by selection, and fed back into subsequent generations. Let's let it run for a while and see if produces a complex design with no intelligent intervention or explicit instructions.<br /><br />Well, how about that!<br /><br /><a href="http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/research/circuit.htm" rel="nofollow"> NASA Evolvable Systems Group: Automated Circuit Design</a>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12441499389893375372010-06-03T09:49:35.479-07:002010-06-03T09:49:35.479-07:00I will try not to make claims but see if there is ...I will try not to make claims but see if there is any sense here.<br /> <br /> <br />I have lots of electronic components at home and at my work desk so<br />lets make computer(or something) in the bag.<br /><br />Lets fill 30% of the bag with tiny logic gates(simple rules for electron flow) and somehow keep them floating.Than attach little magnets to gates so they can self assemble ( sipmle rules ). Also,lets put small batteries in the bag and attach little magnets to them as well. Put in there tiny memory chip,too( lets not forget little magnets ).<br /><br />Slosh the bag.<br /><br />I wonder how would all this self assemble? <br /><br />I may be practical but I'm not trying this experiment.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65157938675131691252010-06-03T06:10:42.394-07:002010-06-03T06:10:42.394-07:00Eugen said...
thorton
I do not want to us...<i>Eugen said...<br /><br /> thorton<br /> I do not want to use words program or machine for now.<br /> Why are there more electrons in some matrix locations than the others? They are moving by natural law but following unlikely pattern. They would not be able to do it if just left to natural laws alone.What is forcing them to follow unlikely pattern? </i><br /><br />Humans designed and built specific hardware to cause them to move in "unlikely pattern".<br /><br />And before you make the inane claim that the chemical reactions involving DNA also follow "unlikely patterns", you've got to show why they're unlikely. Complicated or complex does not mean unlikely.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42319989544012672682010-06-03T05:24:03.362-07:002010-06-03T05:24:03.362-07:00thorton
I do not want to use words program or mac...thorton <br />I do not want to use words program or machine for now. <br />Why are there more electrons in some matrix locations than the others? They are moving by natural law but following unlikely pattern. They would not be able to do it if just left to natural laws alone.What is forcing them to follow unlikely pattern?Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5821992810599080412010-06-02T18:33:39.264-07:002010-06-02T18:33:39.264-07:00David,
Yarus's work is fascinating. Unfortun...David, <br /><br />Yarus's work is fascinating. Unfortunately, one of his most interesting isn't attainable online-- it describes how four predicted reactions for early translation (Activation of amino acids, formation of peptide bonds, synthesis of aminoacyl RNAs, and synthesis of effective peptide catalysts) are well within the repertoire of RNAs alone: <br /><br />Yarus, M (2003). On translation by RNAs alone. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology LXVI: 207-215. <br /><br />Dave WiskerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6444486756922695342010-06-02T15:04:59.210-07:002010-06-02T15:04:59.210-07:00allopatrik,
Thanks for your reference to Art Hunt...allopatrik,<br /><br />Thanks for your reference to Art Hunt's explanation of the work by Yarus, and its refutation of Meyer's (and Hanno's) argument that the genetic code is <b>arbitrary</b>.<br /><br />Now it's clear where Hanno got his talking points. And it's also clear why he's been squirming so vigorously to escape the evidence. Armchair theorizing <i>a la</i> Meyer is once again blown to smithereens by empirical evidence.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82119047969379391292010-06-02T12:00:06.541-07:002010-06-02T12:00:06.541-07:00Ever hear of the seven layer OSI model for compute...Ever hear of the seven layer OSI model for computers? Moving electron are at the lowest, physical layer. Computer programs that use abstract symbols are at the top, the application layer. They need to be interpreted to run. Even lower level assembly language using abstract symbols needs to be interpreted to be translated to machine code to make electrons move at the physical level.<br /><br />DNA-->protein is a <b>chemical reaction.</b> All it has is the <b>physical layer.</b> There is no abstraction of symbols, no instruction interpreting being done. It's just a big, complicated chemical reaction at the physical layer.<br /><br />Humans use descriptions from computer software as analogies to parts of the complicated chemical reaction for ease in describing/understanding the functions, but that's all they are. <b>Analogies.</b><br /><br />As far as the question "where did the information in DNA come from", the answer is <b>it came from the environment.</b> Naturally occurring genetic variations that happen during reproduction get filtered by natural selection. The results get passed on and the cycle happens again. The entire process creates the DNA structures we see today. All you need to create complexity is imperfect self-replicators experiencing differential reproductive success. And that just what the evidence shows we've had for the last 3.3 billion years.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87990822762464980972010-06-02T11:52:31.200-07:002010-06-02T11:52:31.200-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43812238848235383962010-06-02T10:17:19.396-07:002010-06-02T10:17:19.396-07:00Eugen said...
Try the other way around :
computer...Eugen said... <br />Try the other way around :<br />computer processor just moves electrons around because some other electrons were presented to processor electron storage matrix so it forces them against each other.Of forced bunches of electrons some squeeze others and emerge into some other paterns of electrons blah blah <br />Electron bunches just move acording to natural laws <br /><br />C mon thorton, when electrons move are they moving acording to abstract rules or natural ones ?Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26756481824582354322010-06-02T09:45:37.963-07:002010-06-02T09:45:37.963-07:00Hanno,
You might enjoy Art Hunt's recent exp...Hanno, <br /><br />You might enjoy Art Hunt's recent experience debating Meyer. <br /><br />http://aghunt.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/well-that-was-interesting/#more-1083<br /><br />Dave WiskerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18617178954587249822010-06-02T09:45:17.626-07:002010-06-02T09:45:17.626-07:00Hanno said...
Thorton, you are setting up a s...<i>Hanno said...<br /><br /> Thorton, you are setting up a straw man and you know it! You seem to think ID proponents says that DNA code is PURELY ABSTRACT. And no matter how much I try to explain that that is not the case, you keep on hammering your point. </i><br /><br />I know what you told me:<br /><br />"Hanno: <b>The Genetic Code IS abstract,</b> and is described by tRNA. tRNA is a molecule that associate a particular amino acid with a particular triplet of RNA codons."<br /><br />Now if you want to change your story and backpedal, I completely understand, since you're just pulling it out of your butt as you go anyway.<br /><br />You want to tell us when you have your next <i>fantasy du jour</i> ready? Your constant flip-flops are hard to follow.<br /><br />Have you figured out what an <b>analogy</b> is yet?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32766407492837511082010-06-02T09:36:48.621-07:002010-06-02T09:36:48.621-07:00Hanno,
Rather than debating (which, IMNSHO, is a ...Hanno,<br /><br />Rather than debating (which, IMNSHO, is a waste of time, especially won such a large and technical subject), I'd prefer Meyer to have simply examined the stereochemical hypothesis and assessed its weakness and strengths. But he didn't. Frankly, I was disappointed that someone who is trying to present himself as a serious scholar on the subject did such a poor job. <br /><br />Dave WiskerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50481388464175948712010-06-02T08:48:29.647-07:002010-06-02T08:48:29.647-07:00"A better question, Hanno, is why Meyer doesn..."A better question, Hanno, is why Meyer doesn't explore Yarus's work in his book."<br /><br />I would say purely because ID scientists are vastly outnumbered by Darwinist scientists. <br /><br />However, Stephen C Meyer has demonstrated his willingness to debate prominent darwinists, including Dawkins (who declined) and Peter Atkins (Who believe ID=Creationism and was hugely unprepared) I measure the strength of the ID arguments not only on their own merits, but also by the strength of the counter arguments (which, I must say leaves much to be desired)<br /><br />I see no reason why Stephen would not want to debate Yarus, and if it does happen, I would love to download the podcast.Hannodbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801595170248467955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51210194189461444252010-06-02T08:44:40.989-07:002010-06-02T08:44:40.989-07:00Hanno,
As reported in Nature on May 18th 2010:
...Hanno, <br /><br />As reported in Nature on May 18th 2010: <br /><br />"RNA 'dark matter' hinted at by previous studies of mammalian genomes may not exist after all. The mysterious matter refers to the large amounts of RNA that are copied from the DNA sequence, or transcribed, but which cannot be accounted for by the genes that have been identified so far.<br /><br />Using next-generation sequencing technology, researchers based in Canada have found that, in human and mouse cells, most RNA transcripts are copies of regions within or near genes that are known to code for proteins or to regulate gene expression. The finding disputes earlier work claiming that the vast majority of the mammalian genome — including the 98% or so that does not code for proteins — is transcribed into RNA." <br /><br />http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100518/full/news.2010.248.html<br /><br />Dave WiskerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89073330008479459242010-06-02T08:36:51.903-07:002010-06-02T08:36:51.903-07:00Hanno,
The ENCODE project papert is addressed by ...Hanno,<br /><br />The ENCODE project papert is addressed by Moran's blog. Th emore recent PLOS paper contradicts its findings: <br /><br />"We conclude that, while there are bona fide new intergenic transcripts, their number and abundance is generally low in comparison to known exons, and the genome is not as pervasively transcribed as previously reported." <br /><br />Dave WiskerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82223968627176183052010-06-02T08:08:48.684-07:002010-06-02T08:08:48.684-07:00allopatrik
I have to disagree:
http://www.nature...allopatrik<br /><br />I have to disagree:<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464664a.html<br /><br />"Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view. Biology's new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA — what used to be called 'junk' DNA — has been fascinating and befuddling. Researchers from an international collaborative project called the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) showed that in a selected portion of the genome containing just a few per cent of protein-coding sequence, between 74% and 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA2. Much non-coding DNA has a regulatory role; small RNAs of different varieties seem to control gene expression at the level of both DNA and RNA transcripts in ways that are still only beginning to become clear. "Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things — such as how a cell turns on and off — is incredibly naive," says Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia."Hannodbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801595170248467955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22229562446623341152010-06-02T08:06:30.211-07:002010-06-02T08:06:30.211-07:00Thorton, you are setting up a straw man and you kn...Thorton, you are setting up a straw man and you know it! You seem to think ID proponents says that DNA code is PURELY ABSTRACT. And no matter how much I try to explain that that is not the case, you keep on hammering your point. <br /><br />It is people like you that gives Darwinists a bad name: "Uh, I can't refute what they say, so I'll refute what I want them to say". <br /><br />To be fair, though, not all proponents of Darwinism is so pig-headed. I have met one of two reasonable Darwinists whom I can respect.Hannodbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801595170248467955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58002667043781545402010-06-02T08:02:55.561-07:002010-06-02T08:02:55.561-07:00Hanno,
"Though I don't have the experti...Hanno, <br /><br />"Though I don't have the expertise to do so myself, I would imagine that someone like Stephen C Meyer's first question would be: Did the conditions in which the experiment took place represent a realistic prebiotic world?"<br /><br />A better question, Hanno, is why Meyer doesn't explore Yarus's work in his book. The stereochemical hypothesis is one of the most important (and empirically fertile) in the RNA world literature. I don't recall Meyer mentioning Yarus at all, though it's been awhile since I looked at Meyer's book. <br /><br />A minor quibble: Meyer is not a scientist. He is a philosopher. <br /><br />Dave WiskerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29900819320926171932010-06-02T07:54:18.914-07:002010-06-02T07:54:18.914-07:00Hanno,
"In the case of Junk DNA, ID has alr...Hanno, <br /><br />"In the case of Junk DNA, ID has already scored one point, predicting before the fact that it will have function."<br /><br />I'm afraid there is evidence that the vast majority of the genome isn't transcribed. The findings where non-protein-coding DNA was found to have function involved RNA transcripts. So, discovering most of the genbome isn't even transcribed is not good news for the ID "prediction" that the non-coding DNA has function. <br /><br />Here is a great blog by biochemist Larry Moran discussing this: <br /><br />http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/05/junk-rna-or-imaginary-rna.html<br /><br />Dave Wisker <br /><br /> <br /><br />Dave Wisker <br /><br />http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/05/junk-rna-or-imaginary-rna.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38685789219496679142010-06-02T07:16:46.365-07:002010-06-02T07:16:46.365-07:00Hanno said...
Thorton.
I haven't res...<i>Hanno said...<br /><br /> Thorton.<br /><br /> I haven't responded to you because you have exposed yourself as an ignorant Darwinist pomp pomp girl. If you must have a quote, here's one: "[t]he machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." That's by Richard Dawkins, by the way. If you knew anything about DNA, you would not have asked me for such a quote.</i><br /><br />Yeah, silly me. Expecting you to back up your claim that scientists think DNA molecules are really abstract symbols.<br /><br />BTW, in your quote from Dawkins "[t]he machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-<b>like.</b>"<br /><br />..there's that work <b>like</b> again. That means he's using an <b>analogy.</b><br /><br />Do you know what an analogy is Hanno? Do you understand that analogies aren't reality? Apparently not.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91101071729759487402010-06-02T07:04:52.459-07:002010-06-02T07:04:52.459-07:00Thorton.
I haven't responded to you because y...Thorton.<br /><br />I haven't responded to you because you have exposed yourself as an ignorant Darwinist pomp pomp girl. If you must have a quote, here's one: "[t]he machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." That's by Richard Dawkins, by the way. If you knew anything about DNA, you would not have asked me for such a quote.<br /><br /><br />allopatrik <br /><br />Thank you, that is much better. What you said is certainly interesting. Though I don't have the expertise to do so myself, I would imagine that someone like Stephen C Meyer's first question would be: Did the conditions in which the experiment took place represent a realistic prebiotic world? These experiments are obviously done in ideal conditions, but biochemical molecules in the real environment has the tendancy to break down before they can evolve in something more complex.<br /><br />Also, I do not think that Meyer's argument depends on the fact that enzymes code the tRNA. It's a minor footnote in Signature in the Cell. Rather, the question is how do you get the correct sequence of RNA nucleotides to get a self replicating cycle going. As my understanding goes, RNA does not automatically self replicate, it needs to have a particular shape, determined by its nucleotide sequence, and even then, it can only replicate part a of itself. To get to that point, abiogenesis usually selects the RNA strings for future advantage.<br /><br />Moreover, tRNA is only part of the puzzle. Without mRNA, and the Ribosome that does the translation, it is unlikely that tRNA will form amino acid chains by themselves, or even if there is some mechanism that can bypass the ribosome, it still does not guarantee that the resulting amino acid chain will fold into a stable, functioning protein. For that you need information. You need all the various parts in close proximity to each other, plus the RNA strings with the right sequence to actually produce these parts.<br /><br />So, yes, though the results are quite interesting, and since I'm not technically inclined enough to fault the paper, I'll even admit that it might give some hope for a future Darwinian explanation. However I would not consider the findings sufficient to dismiss the informational dilemma, nor is it sufficient to prove that Darwinism will ultimately explain it.<br /><br />Therefore, I would argue, that ID and Darwinian biology should be allowed to coexist for, say 50 years, and then we can determine which group of scientists made the best predictions. ID's predictions is not so much about the origin of live, rather it is about the functioning of live. Darwinism tend to dismiss our ignorance of the functions of certain features as evolutionary left overs. ID predicts that the apparent uselessness has more to do with our own ignorance than evolution. In the case of Junk DNA, ID has already scored one point, predicting before the fact that it will have function.Hannodbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10801595170248467955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84805778905565632802010-06-02T06:32:55.694-07:002010-06-02T06:32:55.694-07:00Hanno,
Here is a very good discussion of Meyer&...Hanno, <br /><br /><br />Here is a very good discussion of Meyer's book in regards to the origin of the genetic code, and the work by Yarus I mentioned earlier. Art Hunt is a molecular biologist specializing in RNA, and understands the issues very well. <br /><br />http://aghunt.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/signature-in-the-cell/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72928601040678194972010-06-02T06:18:15.569-07:002010-06-02T06:18:15.569-07:00Hanno said...
@Thorton
Thought so.
...<i>Hanno said...<br /><br /> @Thorton<br /><br /> Thought so.<br /><br /> There is non so blind than those who refuse to see. Either you don't understand who DNA works, or you don't understand what information is.</i><br /><br />You forgot to provide your references where any scientists anywhere say that physical DNA molecules represent abstract symbols.<br /><br />So I guess you were making it up.<br /><br />That's always been one of the biggest draws to creationism for scientifically challenged folks like you - you get to make up crap as you go.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com