Posted on 12/18/2007 11:11:23 PM PST by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
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?
Not my field. Talk to some of the other scientist types on the threads (those that haven't been banned).
Punt.
I don’t have time to do justice to your other questions at the moment. But I figured I better put this one to rest right now. I have nothing to do with Creation Evolution Headlines. And while I am very flattered that you would compare me to them, you should have been able to tell the difference, for they know more about science than either you or I ever will.
Cheers—GGG
You have a vested interest that the current system of government funded science continue because you are directly profitting from it. Why you cannot disclose this conflict-of-interest in an honest and straightforth manner, is anyones guess. But this behavior is typical of what I have seen from the evolution supporters on FR.
Hundreds of individual clients; we occasionally work for a government agency.
I'm guessing what you call individual clients really means, you have worked for a number of different poeple/projects through a university funded grant. Which ultimately gets back to the issue of, who is paying you to dig ditches and clean old bones? I'm speculating that you've fed from the public trough your entire working life, but you keep trying to deceive me into believing that your labor is being paid for by non-public funds.
To a point, I suppose ... but in so doing, it seems to me that you sacrifice some of the information available. DNA apparently contains layers upon layers of information, including "meta-information." These recent findings tend to strengthen the impression that DNA seems to share certain similarities with software. Perhaps taking a more "ID" approach to the problem would perhaps be more helpful in decompiling it. You don't necessarily have to buy into ID ... but the idea just may provide ways to look at the problem that a purely evolutionary approach doesn't allow.
Suppose we look at through an analogy -- instead of DNA, let's suppose it's a binary file of previously unknown nature. After some investigation, you discover that the binary file appears to contain both information and instructions -- in other words, it has characteristics similar to a software executable. At some point, wouldn't it make sense to look at the binary data as if it were actually programmed by somebody, as a means of unravelling the information flow?
You have a vested interest that the current system of government funded science continue because you are directly profitting from it. Why you cannot disclose this conflict-of-interest in an honest and straightforth manner, is anyones guess. But this behavior is typical of what I have seen from the evolution supporters on FR.
I'm speculating that you've fed from the public trough your entire working life, but you keep trying to deceive me into believing that your labor is being paid for by non-public funds.
You are speculating incorrectly, as usual. That seems to be par for the course when it comes to creationists.
No government grants, no university.
When I say private clients that is exactly what I mean. Our most recent large project has been for a local business that hit some burials during construction. That is a pretty common thing in many parts of the country.
And for calling me a liar, you can go bother someone else.
Me: How many dieties (sic) are there, and what is your scientific evidence for the opinion you hold?
You: Philosophical question. How about asking a scientific one? Or do you believe there are no scientific questions that fall under the philosophy of creationism?
You claimed that creationism is science, so I asked for your scientific evidence. You can't have it both ways. Either creationism is science, as you claimed, or it is not. If it is, as you claim, apply the scientific method and answer the question.
Most likely that is where the vast bulk of ‘private clients’ come from and is a far cry from the type of privately financed archaeological digs the fellow seems to be suggesting.
They assume we are ignorant simpletons and that is why we cannot see the legitamcy of their science. Unfortunately, some of us are mathmeticians, engineers or software developers (not just Christains) and knowledge in these areas tend to complicate a person willingness to accept the evolution story. I’ve yet to get a real explanation why SETI is legitimate science and ID is not. Both are based on entirely the same mathematics.
But then you get an exchange like this, where they cannot give an honest discloser as to who pays their salary, and it becomes obvious to all that there is more going on here. Making your living off government contracts is nothing to be ashamed of. Nor did I ever imply that to be the case. I was simply asking for straight forward disclosure on an issue that would be considered a conflict of interest if this were a trial and not a debate. Had disclosure been straightforward, I’d have assumed he was being honest.
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.).
I think the headline was an attempted repudiation of the idea that a specific DNA sequence would always and in all circumstances hard-code for one and only one amino acid sequence (Thereby "proving" the model wrong, in the author's mind, and thus casting doubt on Darwinism. But why imprecision in translation would be detrimental to a mechanism which works in part by selection of random errors, was a question which apparently never crossed their mind.)
I would suggest again that it is due to basic ignorance of both the scientific method and of scientific data and facts; compounded by a tendency to get whatever science they think they know from the echo-chamber of creationist websites.
I agree, it can be maddening dealing with such a thing : I recall seeing an undergraduate in general chem who didn't know the answer to a written exam question so he quoted scripture. Kind of a non-sequitur.
Cheers!
You treat your outdated biology textbooks as though they are chiseled in stone like the Ten Commandments. Meanwhile, real science is leaving you behind. Again, it was none other than the official publication of the AAAS who declared that the best available evidence suggests that CTD phosphorylation patterns constitute “a code.” So again, your beef is with your Temple of Darwin brethren, not with Creation Scientists, who are simply reporting the story (which just goes to show that nature was created in such a way that the more Darwinism learns, the more it does itself in...LOL).
I can think of several reasons why creationist websites make this error again and again, but they all boil down to ignorance of how evolution works.
It is impossible to correctly describe evolution without describing a process that can be observed and manipulated.
I'm sure Jackie Gleason and Minneasota Fats would disagree with you.
If phosporylation of RNA polymerase constitutes a new ‘code’ then phosporylation of transcription factors also constitutes a ‘code’, and mRNA splicing represents a ‘code’, and DNA methylation constitutes a ‘code’, and signal transduction leading to gene activation is a ‘code’, and everything else that controls if a gene is on or off constitutes a code. By that rather shoddy definition there is little as far as a mechanism of Biological control that wouldn’t be a ‘code’. But underlying it all is the actual code in which a triplet codon specifies an amino acid.
All this new “code” of phosporylation of RNA polymerase does is control which activated transcription factors (also activated by phosporylation themselves) it will interact with to turn on specific genes. How are these genes fulfilling their function? By utilization of the universal genetic code that will translate it into an amino acid.
At the ribosome the language of nucleic acid is translated to amino acid to form an amino acid chain (protein/enzyme)from the messenger RNA in a process known as TRANSLATION.
Of course something simple like that is FAR TOO MUCH for the geniuses at Creation Safari, who know more Science than I ever will apparently, to keep straight in their little fragile minds; so they write a stupid headline about TRANSLATION when the article they source talks about TRANSCRIPTION. Doesn’t speak well of their competence does it?
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.