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.
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.”
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.
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!!!
“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.
==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.
Unless you are Evo of course, in which case you would believe it could start up all over again, all by itself. Though Im not a theist, one of the reasons I could never accept evolution is that fact about lifeit 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.
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)
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.
LOL! If it's 'not so hard' why can't the exact chemical compounds be named?
Chain reactions occurred between what chemicals?
What triggered the reactions?
If the components were already there, why did protolife appear first?
What caused proto life turn into life?
What kind of 'life' did the protolife evolve into?
Can scientists reproduce this birth of life under controlled conditions?
Just a few simple questions need to be answered before conjecture can be accepted as a scientific fact, IMHO.
The Big Bang, yes.
Abiogenesis and the ToE, not so much.
Evos only want it to be separate and not all of them think it is. There’s disagreement within the scientific community on that as well.
For the record, could you tell me what the first cells evolved from? What was the selective pressure on common ancestor of the first cells that produced them?
Evolution does not and never did address the origin of life. It is about what happened and is happened after life arose.
No matter how many times GGG (Old Yellowstain) and his groupies are told that this is the case, they ignore it.
Evolution is by it's own descriptions materialistic and without the need to refer to any creator god at all.
Limit God? Not at all, He can do as He wishes and that is beside the point of what He DID do. What is difficult to understand is why suggest God used evolution if evolutionary theory has an explanation for the existence of all things including man and, moreover, says it can explain all characteristics of man's makeup, conscience, religious feelings, altruism, morality, on and on.
Why do you try to put God in the theory of evolution?
(I couldn't find a good shot of Jerry Paris from the film.)
Give me a billion years, and I’m sure I can make something of it...
Oh wait.. the fossil and the geologic record bears it all out... what was I thinking..
You and GGG failed the same 6th grade science class, didn’t you...
Big Bang Theory- Good TV show.
Most of us geeks are like the guy with the hot girlfriend, not the Sheldon character. Sheldon’s’s so screwed up because his mother is a holy roller.
Hey crevos just watch the song in the intro, you might learn something.
It all depends on what you mean: