Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Cataclysm

 

DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It's nonsensical to say "DNA is a code".

One sentence later...

Originally posted by rhinoceros
DNA is a storage medium for the genetic code(s), much like HDDs are storage media for any kind of code, including the genetic ones.

The amount of brainwashing is strong in this one.

You do realize the whole thing is chemistry, and we only express it with math (aka a code) because that's how humans visualize things, right? We can also mathematically express the alignment of water drops in a cloud, that doesn't mean it's a code

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by Cataclysm

 

DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. It's nonsensical to say "DNA is a code".

One sentence later...

Originally posted by rhinoceros
DNA is a storage medium for the genetic code(s), much like HDDs are storage media for any kind of code, including the genetic ones.

The amount of brainwashing is strong in this one.

You do realize the whole thing is chemistry, and we only express it with math (aka a code) because that's how humans visualize things, right? We can also mathematically express the alignment of water drops in a cloud, that doesn't mean it's a code

Alignment of water drops in a cloud does not have something called transcription...

Edit:
Let's end this 'DNA is not code' bullsh1t right now.

The digital code of DNA

Leroy Hood1 & David Galas2

The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its digital nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes.

Source

Now gtfo.

reply to post by vasaga


"Digital" just means we express those chemical processes and physical quantities related to DNA in DIGITS (aka discreet values). It's a code because anything you express in digits is essentially a code, some are just more complex than others.

And not everything expressed in digits is automatically a code written by some conscious being. You can express the rotation of the earth around the sun mathematically in a digital way...but that doesn't mean it's a code written by some sentient being.

Originally posted by vasaga
The amount of brainwashing is strong in this one.

How is that?

Originally posted by vasaga
Let's end this 'DNA is not code' bullsh1t right now.

Your quote did not say that "DNA is code". As I have said many times now, such sentence would not make any sense. There is encoded information in DNA (protein-coding genes), but DNA is not a code. There is encoded information in a Hard Disk Drive, but Hard Disk Drive is not a code. Understand the difference and

Originally posted by vasaga
gtfo.

My analogy with protein-coding genes and programs was bad. Protein-coding genes are more like files, which are read by RNA polymerase, and translated into amino acids following Genetic Code translation table(s). That is all that the genetic code is. It has 64 words (codons), which are translated into about 20 different words (amino acids).

Just so there is no misunderstanding, below is the entire Standard Genetic Code:

GCT, GCC, GCA, GCG > Ala
CGT, CGC, CGA, CGG, AGA, AGG > Arg
AAT, AAC > Asn
GAT, GAC > Asp
TGT, TGC > Cys
CAA, CAG > Gln
GAA, GAG > Glu
GGT, GGC, GGA, GGG > Gly
CAT, CAC > His
ATT, ATC, ATA > Ile
ATG > Met
TTA, TTG, CTT, CTC, CTA, CTG > Leu
AAA, AAG > Lys
TTT, TTC > Phe
CCT, CCC, CCA, CCG > Pro
TCT, TCC, TCA, TCG, AGT, AGC > Ser
ACT, ACC, ACA, ACG > Thr
TGG > Trp
TAT, TAC > Tyr
GTT, GTC, GTA, GTG > Val
TAA, TGA, TAG > Stop

That is the translation table used in human cytoplasm. In human mitochondria the code is a little bit different:

AGA, AGG > Stop (instead of Arg)
ATA > Met (instead of Ile)
and
TGA > Trp (instead of Stop)

If we are alone in the universe, why assume that the universe is only for us?

It's entirely possible that we came to existence by sheer utter chance, and it's just a coincidence that there's a whole universe to explore.

The only thing that'll settle the matter for me is finding an actual body of sentient life forms. Until that happens, I'm going to go with we're alone in the universe.

Science is supposed to operate on proof from things that can be tested and/or observed, not belief or opinion.

And there must be other life in the universe is an assumption without any hard evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by vasaga
Let's end this 'DNA is not code' bullsh1t right now.

Your quote did not say that "DNA is code". As I have said many times now, such sentence would not make any sense. There is encoded information in DNA (protein-coding genes), but DNA is not a code. There is encoded information in a Hard Disk Drive, but Hard Disk Drive is not a code. Understand the difference and

Originally posted by vasaga
gtfo.

My analogy with protein-coding genes and programs was bad. Protein-coding genes are more like files, which are read by RNA polymerase, and translated into amino acids following Genetic Code translation table(s). That is all that the genetic code is. It has 64 words (codons), which are translated into about 20 different words (amino acids).

Just so there is no misunderstanding, below is the entire Standard Genetic Code:

GCT, GCC, GCA, GCG > Ala
CGT, CGC, CGA, CGG, AGA, AGG > Arg
AAT, AAC > Asn
GAT, GAC > Asp
TGT, TGC > Cys
CAA, CAG > Gln
GAA, GAG > Glu
GGT, GGC, GGA, GGG > Gly
CAT, CAC > His
ATT, ATC, ATA > Ile
ATG > Met
TTA, TTG, CTT, CTC, CTA, CTG > Leu
AAA, AAG > Lys
TTT, TTC > Phe
CCT, CCC, CCA, CCG > Pro
TCT, TCC, TCA, TCG, AGT, AGC > Ser
ACT, ACC, ACA, ACG > Thr
TGG > Trp
TAT, TAC > Tyr
GTT, GTC, GTA, GTG > Val
TAA, TGA, TAG > Stop

That is the translation table used in human cytoplasm. In human mitochondria the code is a little bit different:

AGA, AGG > Stop (instead of Arg)
ATA > Met (instead of Ile)
and
TGA > Trp (instead of Stop)

edit on 31-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

So who wrote the code in the DNA molecule?

Is it blind chance?

tc.

reply to post by edmc^2

This ( 80 min) will probably answer your question to some degree..slides etc... That is what happens in scientific seminars. The guy, Sengupta, is afaik one of the established researchers in this field of science..

reply to post by edmc^2

So who wrote the code in the DNA molecule?

The laws of physics which, when you really get down to it, are what govern chemical reactions.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So who wrote the code in the DNA molecule?

The laws of physics which, when you really get down to it, are what govern chemical reactions.

In other words, what you're saying is - when you really get down to it - the genetic code came to be by chemical reactions.

That is all of the amazing codes responsible for the existence of life came to be - by an accidental chemical reactions - blind chance.

Correct?

tc.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by edmc^2

 

This ( 80 min) will probably answer your question to some degree..slides etc... That is what happens in scientific seminars. The guy, Sengupta, is afaik one of the established researchers in this field of science..

edit on 31-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

Sorry but prof. Sengupta said it's very difficult to answer the question - the origin of life.

But since you're so sure of your belief - what do you think is the answer?

Where did the INFORMATION - the genetic code came from?

Did it write itself or someone more intelligent than us wrote it?

what say you?

tc.

reply to post by edmc^2

It's addressed in the video to some point at least.

Three main theories to explain the origin and structure of the genetic code: (i) the Stereochemical Theory, (ii) the Adaptive Theory and (iii) the Coevolution Theory. These are reviewed in Koonin, E.V. and Novozhilov, A.S. (2009) Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma. IUBMB Life 61, 99–111 (open access).

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by edmc^2

 

It's addressed in the video to some point at least.

Three main theories to explain the origin and structure of the genetic code: (i) the Stereochemical Theory, (ii) the Adaptive Theory and (iii) the Coevolution Theory. These are reviewed in Koonin, E.V. and Novozhilov, A.S. (2009) Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma. IUBMB Life 61, 99–111 (open access).

edit on 31-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

more theories:

(i) the Stereochemical Theory, (ii) the Adaptive Theory and (iii) the Coevolution Theor

then there's these theories to explain the other theories:

The code expansion theory

the error minimization theory

the frozen accident hypothesis

the ‘ambiguous intermediate’ theory

Which theory do you think will answer the ultimate question:

“why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”

tc

reply to post by edmc^2

Three people, all in different places in the United States, each have the winning ticket to a lottery jackpot exceeding half a billion dollars. They have those winning tickets by "blind chance", each one of those three with odds on the order of 1 in 10^8 of having a winning ticket.

And, yet, it happened.

If your understanding of the chemical reactions that go into forming amino acids and DNA/RNA bases -- reactions which take place with elements formed in some of the earliest stages of stellar nucleosynthesis -- is so limited that your mind can only equate them with "blind chance", and your personal definition of "blind chance" essentially boils down to "so improbable that it could not possibly have happened" even though improbable things happen as a matter of course, then I'd argue that the problem isn't really with science's explanation of things.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Which theory do you think will answer the ultimate question:

“why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”

If you would have read the article I linked, you would know by now that objective observations point to the code having evolved in at least three distinct phases, thus the answer to your question requires by default a synthesis of multiple theories, rendering your question to one rising from ignorance..

reply to post by rhinoceros

The comparison with a hard drive is faulty.. Why? Because a hard drive is not composed of ones and zeroes, while DNA is composed of the acid bases ACGT themselves which form the language of the code. You can wipe a hard drive clean and still have it be intact. You can't do the same for a DNA molecule. DNA IS the code.

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

The comparison with a hard drive is faulty.. Why? Because a hard drive is not composed of ones and zeroes, while DNA is composed of the acid bases ACGT themselves which form the language of the code. You can wipe a hard drive clean and still have it be intact. You can't do the same for a DNA molecule. DNA IS the code.

edit on 1-4-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

I hope you realize that your argument is a prime example of argument from complexity...which is part of the arguments of ignorance: LINK

Nothing you posted is objective evidence supporting your claims

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

The comparison with a hard drive is faulty.. Why? Because a hard drive is not composed of ones and zeroes, while DNA is composed of the acid bases ACGT themselves which form the language of the code. You can wipe a hard drive clean and still have it be intact. You can't do the same for a DNA molecule. DNA IS the code.

edit on 1-4-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)

You're wrong. The nucleotides do not the form the language of the code. On the contrary, the language of the code is formed by triplets of nucleotides (aka codons). Human languages are formed by words. Words are formed by alphabets. Human languages are not formed by alphabets. I hope you understand the difference. You can erase information from a DNA molecule just like you can erase information from a HDD, and still leave the medium itself intact (e.g. replace all nucleotides with repetitive AATAATAAT pattern).

Quoting the article I linked:

It has been argued that movement in increments of three nucleotides is a fundamental physical property of RNA translocation in the ribosome so that the translation system originated as a triplet-based machine (20–22). Obviously, this does not rule out the possibility that, e.g., only two nucleotides in each codon are informative (see, e.g., (23–26) for hypotheses on the evolution of the code through a “doublet” phase).