DNA Translation Has Codes Upon Codes

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | December 17, 2007

[allmendream]

Basic Biology which Creationists do not know or understand and easily confuse in their headlines.

Central Dogma of Molecular Genetics: DNA serves as a template for RNA synthesis, RNA codes for an amino acid chain that will form an active protein.

Transcription: DNA is transcribed by RNA polymerase to make an RNA transcript that will contain the ‘code’ for an amino acid sequence that will make an active protein such as an enzyme. This takes place in the cell nucleus when a transcription factor binds to the promoter region of a gene and then recruits RNA polymerase to make a transcript of the gene.

Translation: RNA is ‘translated’ into an amino acid sequence at the ribosome (a large molecule protein and RNA structure in the internal membranes or cytoplasm of the cell). The RNA transcript is fed through the ribosome like a film strip and each triplet codon of RNA is matched to its specific amino acid. As the transcript feeds through the ribosome an amino acid chain forms. When this amino acid chain is properly folded it is an active molecular machine; a protein and/or enzyme.

Hope this helps. This is, of course, a simplified version. There are, as I have mentioned, multiple levels of control. Phosporylation of RNA polymerase is a newly discovered mechanism of control which will regulate what subset of transcription factors it will preferentially bind to, influencing which genes it will turn on. This is not a ‘code within a code’ or ‘code upon a code’ and has NOTHING to do with Translation. So the headline is about as ignorant as the person who wrote it would have to be about basic Biology (oh, but they know so much better than actual Biologists; and have much stronger interpretive powers when wielding our data because of their non dependence upon natural law.).

[SlowBoat407]

but....but...but.. Didn’t all this happen with a Big Bang?

If that was God's will, yes. You think He can't do a big bang if He wants to? Why do you want to limit God? I prefer discovering His wonders.

[allmendream]

They changed the headline or the body of the text or both? How much more/less incorrect is it now? Do we need a ‘wayback’ page on the things you source because they are subject to immediate revision?

Did you/Do you write/edit/contribute to the other site? Did you correct it at my urging? Is that why you ping me to this intellectual train wreck where cutting edge biological information is mis-transcribed and mis-translated into pseudoscientific garbage with the essentials absolutely incorrect? So when I laugh at the inaccuracies you can put a band-aid on the bullet hole of shoddy thinking? Is that why you took insults to your source so personal? Are you “Creation Safari”? Seems to have the same M.O.; post cre/I.D. musings about Scientific findings that are obviously misunderstood at even the most basic level. So are ya? Do ya? I am intrigued and wonder if it is better or worse to correct those who are obviously incorrect and whose ideas about Science I oppose.

[ASA Vet]

[dan1123]

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

>> Actually I'm arguing from results.

This is why it is so difficult to debate with an evolutionist. You were not arguing from "results", but comparing an existing scenario to a straw-man of a creationist scenario.

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.

It will be interesting when evolutionists allow such research to occur and be published.

[Coyoteman]

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.

It will be interesting when evolutionists allow such research to occur and be published.

The reason it is not accepted into the science journals is because it is not science. It is religion masquerading as science, and not even making it to the level of junk science.

But feel free to research and publish all you want in your own journals. There are lots of "peer-reviewed" creationist journals just waiting for your research results.

[dan1123]

The reason it is not accepted into the science journals is because it is not science.

Step one of silencing your opponent, define them as "other". A philosophical difference does not exclude something from science, because science does not depend on philosophy. If it did, then all science done before modern materialism overtook science would be invalid.

[Diplomat]

But feel free to research and publish all you want in your own journals. There are lots of "peer-reviewed" creationist journals just waiting for your research results.

I only wish you and your fellows had the courage to live by your own words. But since you spent nearly your entire adult life employed at a university, paid from everyone tax dollars, you're not really one to lecture others about how science should be done. Go get a job that requires you to produce actual real world results, one that isn't supported by the Fed/State, and then come back and lecture us about how science should be done.

[Coyoteman]

But since you spent nearly your entire adult life employed at a university, paid from everyone tax dollars, you're not really one to lecture others about how science should be done. Go get a job that requires you to produce actual real world results, one that isn't supported by the Fed/State, and then come back and lecture us about how science should be done.

Got one, thanks.

I find it amazing just how often the anti-science folks here are wrong in what they claim. You have just provided another example.

[Coyoteman]

Step one of silencing your opponent, define them as "other". A philosophical difference does not exclude something from science, because science does not depend on philosophy. If it did, then all science done before modern materialism overtook science would be invalid.

Your argument goes in circles.

Religion is excluded from science because it does not follow the scientific method. It is as simple as that.

[Diplomat]

Actually, you provided no evidence that proves my assertion was incorrect. Furthermore, I thought I had read an earlier version of your FR home page which stated you spent most of your working years teaching science at a university.

If I have confused you with someone else, my appologies, but personally, I don’t think that I have made a mistake with my assertion.

How many years have you been/were you employed at a university, and/or via govenment grants? And how many years have you been working for private industry?

[dan1123]

Religion is excluded from science because it does not follow the scientific method. It is as simple as that.

Only a ridiculous caricature of creationism would fall outside of the scientific method. Guiding philosophies of scientific inquiry have been religious far longer than they have been materialist, and many great scientific discoveries in history have been aided by religious belief. Science itself does not have a claim on religion. It is orthogonal and can progress with or without religious belief, and aspects may be aided or hindered based on the philosophical beliefs of the time.

You believe in your philosophy, but don't confuse it with science. A differing philosophical belief may be a threat to one you hold closely, but it is not a threat to science.

[Coyoteman]

How many years have you been/were you employed at a university, and/or via govenment grants? And how many years have you been working for private industry?

After grad school I entered private practice as an archaeologist, and have been doing that ever since--several decades! I work for a living!

But I did six years of grad school, with half spent studying evolution, fossil man, primates, osteology, anatomy, human races and similar subjects, so I feel qualified to comment on the silliness we see on these threads.

[GodGunsGuts]

==“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

That’s precisely what Creation Scientists and ID Scientists are doing. They are demonstrating that Darwinism fails to stand up to scientific scrutiny and needs to be discarded.

[Coyoteman]

Only a ridiculous caricature of creationism would fall outside of the scientific method.

OK, lets propose a test. You claim creationism follows the scientific method:

How many dieties are there, and what is your scientific evidence for the opinion you hold?

How can your opinion be tested?

[Centurion2000]

Since you asked, it is zealots like you whom I find offensive.

Merry Christmas

[Diplomat]

You conviently keep failing to state who ultimately financed your private practice work.

[Rock N Jones]

Didn’t all this happen with a Big Bang?

I think it is more like the Big Bank!

[Coyoteman]

You conviently keep failing to state who ultimately financed your private practice work.

Hundreds of individual clients; we occasionally work for a government agency.

But what's the point? Is there some stigma associated with working for a university? Or is that realllllllly baaaaaaad for some reason?

[B-Chan]

OK, lets propose a test. You claim that Baconian materialism follows the scientific method.

Are matter, energy, space, and time all that exist? If so, what is your evidence for that assertion? Can your assertion be falsified?

How can your opinion be tested?