Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 6:11 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The code that is DNA
RE: The code that is DNA
Hydrogen bonding patterns and heredity account for the order of any given sequence, as was already explained.

I suppose it's accurate enough to say that the order expresses more than just the material it's made of, sure. The order expresses generations of pass fail tests and the evolutionary inheritance of the manner in which we overcame this or that obstacle. An adaptation to this here, that there. This doesn't just tell us about ourselves, but about the past we lived through. DNA is profound, still, thoroughly natural. It is organic chemistry, after all.

It would be a relatively poor creation that lacked such natural wonder don't you think?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
RE: The code that is DNA
You're using the word think, Gae. Something cdf jr. Isn't even remotely equipped for.
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 8, 2019 at 7:33 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote: Polymath,
In regard to your lightening strike analogy, it’s true we don’t really know where it’s going to strike , the laws of physics/nature are governing and it’s random.
The ordering of nucleotides however, must be governed phenomena because it becomes instructions  that get decoded. The order represents something more than just the material it’s made from, this is profound.
however a lightning strike does not represent
anything but itself , doesn’t get decoded into a specific function nor gets error corrected.
I take it John 6IX has realized there is something  unnatural at play.

But it *isn't* instructions that get decoded. For example, there is no stretch of DNA that describes how to build an arm. There is no stretch of DNA that tells how to build a stomach.

The idea that DNA is some sort of blueprint is fallacious. Unlike a blueprint, which is isolated and doesn't actively interact with the workers except for conveying information in one direction, there is direction flow both directions in DNA. Not just from DNA-->RNA-->Protein, but also proteins can bind DNA, either promoting or inhibiting transcription.

Instead of being a source for information, the DNA is part of a web of information spread out between the DNA, the RNA,  the proteins, but also involving things like vitamins, and smaller molecules like glucose, etc. Information is simply the existence or concentration of these different chemicals. It is this that drives ALL of the processes of life. But there isn't anything mysterious about how that information arises.

If you only had the stretch of DNA and no prior knowledge of the 'code', there is literally no way to determine what that stretch of DNA is coding for. In fact, if anything, the code itself lies in the tRNA (transfer RNA) that takes a codon and matches it to an amino acid to be assembled by the ribosome. Both the 'translation' given by the tRNA and the assembly of the protein (done by the ribosome) are primarily done by RNA, not DNA.

And, in fact, RNA ia a remarkable little molecule. Like DNA, it can carry information (codons). In fact, as mRNA it carries the DNA 'code' to the ribosome. But, unlike DNA, RNA can actually catalyze biologically relevant reactions. That's what happens in the ribosome, for example. So, instead of having a split between the information and the 'meaning', it is common for RNA to have both within the same molecule.

This is one of the many reasons many scientists think there was an RNA world prior to the adoption of DNA by living things as the genetic material. We even know of self-replicating strands of RNA! The DNA came later as a more stable repository for the genetics.

The upshot? Focusing on DNA is misguided. Information is far more distributed in living things than is suggested by the notion of a DNA 'code'.
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 8, 2019 at 7:33 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote: Polymath,
In regard to your lightening strike analogy, it’s true we don’t really know where it’s going to strike , the laws of physics/nature are governing and it’s random.
The ordering of nucleotides however, must be governed phenomena because it becomes instructions  that get decoded. The order represents something more than just the material it’s made from, this is profound.
however a lightning strike does not represent
anything but itself , doesn’t get decoded into a specific function nor gets error corrected.
I take it John 6IX has realized there is something  unnatural at play.

I want to make an overall point here, not in response to a specific post, but it seems a bit strange that you are on an atheist forum, presenting us with your hypothesis concerning DNA. After all, most people here are not biologists, although many of us do tend to be abit more knowledgeable on the subject than many people.

You know who you have to present your hypothesis to, right? PhD biologists. After all, they are the ones that have spent most of their adult lives in school studying the subject, working in the associated fields of science, and, not only have vastly more knowledge than you do, but have more knowledge than you can actually imagine they have.

And they don't seem to agree with you. Not only that, but about 72% of biologists are nonbelievers. And most of the biologists that do believe, tend to be deists or pantheists, not Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

So, please, publish and present your paper to biologists and change the minds of the most educated. Imagine how famous and worldview altering.

Or, at least post your hypothesis on one of the many, many biology forums available. Then you can post links here to the forums where you convinced biologists.

Oh wait, I forgot about the 'great science conspiracy' where 'proofs of god' are rejected without consideration. Dodgy

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
RE: The code that is DNA
as the sovereign ruler of all existence I find it beneath me to explain something this trivial
POWER!!!!.. UNLIMITED POWER!!!!!
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 9, 2019 at 3:14 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:
(December 8, 2019 at 7:33 pm)Yukon_Jack Wrote: Polymath,
In regard to your lightening strike analogy, it’s true we don’t really know where it’s going to strike , the laws of physics/nature are governing and it’s random.
The ordering of nucleotides however, must be governed phenomena because it becomes instructions  that get decoded. The order represents something more than just the material it’s made from, this is profound.
however a lightning strike does not represent
anything but itself , doesn’t get decoded into a specific function nor gets error corrected.
I take it John 6IX has realized there is something  unnatural at play.

I want to make an overall point here, not in response to a specific post, but it seems a bit strange that you are on an atheist forum, presenting us with your hypothesis concerning DNA. After all, most people here are not biologists, although many of us do tend to be abit more knowledgeable on the subject than many people.

You know who you have to present your hypothesis to, right? PhD biologists. After all, they are the ones that have spent most of their adult lives in school studying the subject, working in the associated fields of science, and, not only have vastly more knowledge than you do, but have more knowledge than you can actually imagine they have.

And they don't seem to agree with you. Not only that, but about 72% of biologists are nonbelievers. And most of the biologists that do believe, tend to be deists or pantheists, not Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

So, please, publish and present your paper to biologists and change the minds of the most educated. Imagine how famous and worldview altering.

Or, at least post your hypothesis on one of the many, many biology forums available. Then you can post links here to the forums where you convinced biologists.

Oh wait, I forgot about the 'great science conspiracy' where 'proofs of god' are rejected without consideration. Dodgy

I do have background on chemistry and I studied the molecule to great detail. I have asked 3 times for youkon to explain the intricancies of DNA to me, a beg not answered. My take on it? He is regurgitating his church rethoric, not interested in learning, just a vain argument from his own ignorance. I suppose it keeps people entertained, speaking for myself, makes me feel real smart, basking in such stupidity. Oh well, I'm just human.
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 9, 2019 at 9:22 am)polymath257 Wrote: But it *isn't* instructions that get decoded. For example, there is no stretch of DNA that describes how to build an arm. There is no stretch of DNA that tells how to build a stomach.
This is something I cannot fathom. Where did the notion come from that Human DNA was a "blueprint" for building a whole human?

A better analogy would be a dumb Xerox for proteins. However, DNA is brilliant at reproducing itself. Xerox machines? Not so much.

ETA: When you think about it, if you put an printed page in a copier, the copy will include flaws from the copying. Marks on the glass, dust, reflection errors and so forth. A bit like DNA mutation.
RE: The code that is DNA
Simon Moon, how boring.

The only requirement to converse in any subject is a brain not a PhD. If you're not interested in these conversations, at the very least let those that are continue to participate.

If you'd like, I'll forward you the PDFs for my university's biology and genetics textbooks. I look forward to hearing from you when you feel more qualified.
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 9, 2019 at 4:50 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Simon Moon, how boring.

The only requirement to converse in any subject is a brain not a PhD. If you're not interested in these conversations, at the very least let those that are continue to participate.

If you'd like, I'll forward you the PDFs for my university's biology and genetics textbooks. I look forward to hearing from you when you feel more qualified.

A brain with a PhD in the subject matter is indeed more useful and likely contains more truth about the topic.

I am a lay person when it comes to biology. I've had a single basic University course on the topic and not much more.

Those with more knowledge try to explain to lay people that DNA is like a blueprint or it's like a program code of instructions. People understand blueprints and program codes.

The problem lies with some lay people thinking that this simple explanation is ALL there is to it. They want to take this over simplified explanation and treat it like unmovable knowledge.

An automobile is not simply a much larger toy car.
There's more to it than that, but if try to explain all the complexity to a child, the concepts will be lost. That child will need a couple decades of education before he or she will be able to understand everything that makes up a car, it's engine, transmission, body structure, engineering concepts, etc.

DNA is not a code. It's not a blueprint in it's truest sense.
These are terms used to help a lay person to understand some of the basic ideas. It's not completely accurate, in much the same way that an automobile is not just a much larger toy car.
Insanity - Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result
RE: The code that is DNA
(December 9, 2019 at 5:15 pm)Rahn127 Wrote:
(December 9, 2019 at 4:50 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Simon Moon, how boring.

The only requirement to converse in any subject is a brain not a PhD. If you're not interested in these conversations, at the very least let those that are continue to participate.

If you'd like, I'll forward you the PDFs for my university's biology and genetics textbooks. I look forward to hearing from you when you feel more qualified.

A brain with a PhD in the subject matter is indeed more useful and likely contains more truth about the topic.

I am a lay person when it comes to biology. I've had a single basic University course on the topic and not much more.

Those with more knowledge try to explain to lay people that DNA is like a blueprint or it's like a program code of instructions. People understand blueprints and program codes.

The problem lies with some lay people thinking that this simple explanation is ALL there is to it. They want to take this over simplified explanation and treat it like unmovable knowledge.

An automobile is not simply a much larger toy car.
There's more to it than that, but if try to explain all the complexity to a child, the concepts will be lost. That child will need a couple decades of education before he or she will be able to understand everything that makes up a car, it's engine, transmission, body structure, engineering concepts, etc.

DNA is not a code. It's not a blueprint in it's truest sense.
These are terms used to help a lay person to understand some of the basic ideas. It's not completely accurate, in much the same way that an automobile is not just a much larger toy car.

It is the principle of "lies-to-children" in action. Now, that sounds rather patronising, but it isn't. Anyone who has had children naturally understands it.

In short, when one's child asks about any topic, one provides a simplified answer using metaphors and analogies that are sufficient to the child's level of understanding. Every parent has done this. Every one of them understands that they are not presenting a full picture. Every teacher has done this.

And example would be the Bohr model of the atom, which would have ballistic electrons orbiting a nucleus at particular radii. We know that is not actually the case, yet still we teach it, because one must approach the topic stepwise, developing understanding in increments or small enough bites that a student can digest them before moving on to more advanced understanding.

The problem arises when a theist gloms on to one of the intermediate analogies as a matter of fact and not at all an analogy.



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Signature in the Cell: DNA as Evidence for Design, beside Nature's Laws/Fine-Tuning. Nishant Xavier 54 2715 July 8, 2023 at 8:23 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Are humans half aliens? Human DNA question Signa92 14 1883 December 30, 2018 at 12:34 am
Last Post: Rahn127
Brick Atheist moral code Void 45 15527 March 24, 2015 at 8:14 pm
Last Post: I Am Not A Human Being



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)