Skip to comments.What Defines an Organism? Biologists Say 'Purpose.'
Posted on 12/10/2009 8:12:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Actually it is easier to spell with the amino acid alphabet.
In protein gene sequences, three DNA bases code for an amino acid (a codon). There are 4^3 or 64 codons that code for the amino acids and a stop codon. Amino acids can have up to six codons or as few as one.
The amino acids(the building blocks of proteins for those in Rio Linda) all have a one letter abbreviation (alanine=A, Methionine=M, etc). One biotech company, to guard against other companies stealing their work, put a DNA sequence into a gene they introduced into an animal (may have been a rat-I don’t remember). The DNA sequence was in the intron of the gene they introduced.
(Introns are portions of the gene that are spliced out when the gene is transcribed into RNA which is then used to produce proteins.)
When the DNA sequence of the intron was decoded to the one letter amino acid sequence, it spelled out the company’s name. They could check this if they suspected someone had stolen their product.
Did you read what my reply was in response to?
Yes...now play along silly.
I hate to break it to you, but they didn’t spell using the four letter alphabet, what they did was utilize DNA to produce amino acids in a certain sequence. That’s not spelling with DNA, that’s spelling with the letters that have been artificially assigned to each amino acid.
Spelling nonetheless. Just using a different language. :-).
Where do you get this idea that the DNA code is more than the 4 bases. Watson, Crick and Rosalind Franklin were wrong and GGG is right?
Focusing on the parts used to assemble the DNA and ignoring the information it contains is the ONLY way to even begin to claim that DNA is simple.
Again, why don’t you go tell the scientists that you have it all figured out?
While you’re at it, please explain to us what the purpose of all that *junk DNA* is for and was for.
All the information DNA contains is constituted by the four bases. Decoding what it means is the hard part. The code itself is simple.
Perhaps we could call him glycine?
GGG = Glycine according to our database.
(please see the Lucy and Ardi show)
That's wrong is so many ways...first of all, as far as I know, the factual descriptions of the Lucy and Ardi fossils have not been shown to be inaccurate. Some (including some scientists, from the time of the first announcement) disagree with the interpretation of Ardi--exactly where she fits in with the human line--but they haven't challenged the description of the fossils themselves.
Which is why it's silly to say that conclusions are not to be questioned. The original researchers' conclusions have been questioned by other scientists from the moment they announced them. That's why I always say the Temple of Darwin is the worst conspiracy ever: they can't seem to keep the disagreements and questions from showing up in public--you'd think they almost encouraged questions!
And besides, I was talking about GGG's assessment of Brian's science writing abilities. If you show me a Darwinist science writer who distorts the facts to reach a conclusion as often as Brian does, I'll say they're a lousy science writer no matter how much I agree with their conclusion.
Far too many inorganic entities and processes exhibit purpose...
Dust and gas coming together to form suns and planets, magnets sticking together..
Are they organisms ???
So you agree these two evolutionary biologists, David Queller and Joan Strassmann, claiming all the body parts, from the macro level (arms and legs) to the micro (cells) work nicely together with very little conflict is what makes each human a single organism, is just more evolutionary story telling bunk?
Your question smacks of on of those
“Because there is hydrogen in the universe, there must be water on earth” statements.
Without extensively reading Queller & Strassmann, and being able to discern their claims in context, I have no answer for you, because the statement, as a question, makes no sense.
Silly me. I always thought the way to determine whether or not something was an ‘organism’ was anything with the ability to reproduce.
Yes that is silly. Would you say a mule is NOT and organism, or a hinny. How about all the hybrid plants that cannot reproduce. Some humans are born unable to reproduce. All these are not organisms?
“super-sophisticated digital DNA codes ...”
DNA encoding has not been demonstrated to be digital.
After his recent meltdowns the last few days (the pulled threads), I prefer calling him Old Yellowstain (Caine Mutiny reference).
Can’t say the evos are comfortable with the implications of this, but...
-St. Augustine of Hippo, “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”, A.D. 408
You criticized the idea that “purpose” is what defines an organism. It was two evolutionary biologists who made the statement. I think you missed that, and was just wondering if you had.
Think you need to get out more.
Evolution could be God’s method of creation. Evolution could be unfolding according to God’s plan.
Why do you limit God ?
No problem at all.. seeing it is an opinion, like an analogy, not some scientific fact. Describing something has having a “digital nature” does not in fact make something “digital”, but you knew that, and posted it anyway.
“Sound, may be digital or analog, just as light may be a particle or a wave, but what the eye and the ear perceive is entirely analog, no matter how you slice it”
No, I didn’t argue it... I posited an alternate solution.