RE: DNA Proves Existence of a Designer
April 24, 2019 at 12:13 pm
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2019 at 12:17 pm by sdelsolray.)
(April 24, 2019 at 6:41 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: ...
Obviously biological complexity is beyond your understanding, as is the nature of genetic coding. To wit:
References:
- The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.
Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.
An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.
- The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).
The fact that genetic coding is functional does not, in any way, indicate the existence of a designer. Get an education, numb nuts.
- Tsonis, A. A., J. B. Elsner and P. A. Tsonis, 1997. Is DNA a language? Journal of Theoretical Biology 184: 25-29.
Good post. A few added points concerning protein formation:
1) DNA does not directly code for proteins. An inverse copy of one side (always the same side) of a portion of a DNA molecule is made into messenger RNA (mRNA). Next, an inverse copy of that mRNA is made into transcription RNA (tRNA), which, in essence results in a copy of that certain side of the original DNA sequence at issue.
2) 61 of the 64 codons map for a specific amino acid. Some codons map for the same amino acid and three function as stop codes.
3) The tRNA then builds the specific protein to which the codons map.
4) The folding of proteins is a function and property of how the amino acids are sequenced in the polypeptide chain/protein.
5) The "left-handedness" of proteins is due to the state of the tRNA (traced back to the side of the DNA molecule that was used to make mRNA. Had the other side of the DNA molecule been used to make mRNA, proteins would all be "right-handed", and they would have been coded differently.
6) I'm leaving aside the enzymatic chemistry during these processes for now.