There are a lot of great resources available on the internet for countering Code Denialism. I’ve gathered a few of them for your convenience. I envision a multi-part series on this topic because the evidence against Code Denialism is so extensive and Code Denialism seems to be surging in popularity here at TSZ.
The 1961 paper by Crick et al. is an outstanding example of the use of thought and logic to solve basic biological problems. In my opinion, it is a superb paper to assign to students in courses because it illustrates how combining knowledge and wisdom can provide answers to important scientific questions.
They demonstrated that three bases of DNA code for one amino acid in the genetic code. The experiment elucidated the nature of gene expression and frame-shift mutations.
…the mutant strains could be made functional again by using proflavin to insert or delete a total of three nucleotides. This proved that the genetic code uses a codon of three DNA bases that corresponds to an amino acid.
“This concept of a phase shift, or a ‘frameshift’ [in the genetic code of an rII gene] as we later called it, was so foreign to people in genetics that we had endless problems trying to explain this work.”
Seems like they still have work to do.
The famous paper:
THERE is now a mass of indirect evidence which suggests that the amino-acid sequence along the polypeptids chain of a protein is determined by the sequence of the bases along some particular part of the nucleic acid of the genetic material. Since there are twenty common amino-acids found throughout Nature, but only four common bases, it has often been surmised that the sequence of the four bases is in some way a code for the sequence of the amino-acids. In this article we report genetic experiments which, together with the work of others, suggest that
the genetic code is of the following general type:(a) A group of three bases (or, less likely, a multiple of three bases) codes one amino-acid.
(b) The code is not of the overlapping type.
(c) The sequence of the bases is read from a fixed starting point. This determines how the long sequences of bases are to be correctly read off as triplets. There are no special `commas’ to show how to select the right triplets. If the starting point is displaced by one base, then the reading into triplets is displaced, and thus becomes incorrect.
(d) The code is probably `degenerate’; that is, in general, one particular ammo-acid can be coded by one of several triplets of bases.
Is the Code Degenerate?
… the code is probably `degenerate’, that is, in general more than one triplet codes for each amino-acid. It is well known that if this were so, one could also account for the major dilemma of the coding problem, namely, that while the bese composition of the DNA can be very different in different micro-organisms, the amino-acid composition of their proteins only changes by a moderate amount.
The Nobel Lecture:
I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material – that of the genetic code – which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work.
…It is convenient to have a word for a set of bases which codes one amino acid and I shall use the word “codon” for this.
…There is nothing in the backbone of the nucleic acid, which is perfectly regular, to show us how to group the bases into codons. If, for example, all the codons are triplets, then in addition to the correct reading of the message, there are two incorrect readings which we shall obtain if we do not start the grouping into sets of three at the right place.
In spite of the uncertainty of much of the experimental data there are certain codes which have been suggested in the past which we can now reject with some degree of confidence.
Message, messenger, or genetic message appears 12 times. Other codes were proposed and rejected.
The genetic code is a code.
The evidence against Code Denialism is overwhelming.
There’s really nothing to discuss. But if you insist…
Who ever said it wasn’t Mr Weasel?
No Mr. Weasel. I’m looking for you to stop the weaseling and show DNA is composed of arbitrary symbols like Morse code is.
I ask again, would Larry or Crick agree with you that the genetic code was designed by an intelligence? You seem to be ignoring that question.
All you have to do is say yes or no.
You seem to be simply regurgitating the kool-aid that the discovery institute are serving up. You don’t seem to actually want to talk about science.
Why don’t you try answering those questions for yourself? If you really want to talk about science then finding those answers out for yourself and explaining why you are not convinced would be productive I’m sure.
So, question one. what evidence is there that the genetic code evolved. Are you familiar with that evidence? If so, what have you looked at? If not, do you need some references?
fifthmonarchyman,
If you say ‘arose spontaneously from a primordial soup’, you are constructing a straw man, however much you may word-game it. It’s not either ‘arose spontaneously from a primordial soup’ or ‘was planned’. Do you suppose people think hearts arose spontaneously from a primordial soup, or teeth?
Is that a serious question? Could you parse it? What was the function of ASCII before there was ASCII?
fifthmonarchyman,
Oh, argument from authority. You win. Larry Moran is an expert not only on biochemistry but on codes, semantics and epistemology, and no expert on any relevant subject thinks any differently from him. Oh, wait …
fifthmonarchyman,
And yet you asked the following:
You are asking questions that you know the answer to (accepting the slightly odd way of saying it). The genetic code, just to remind you, being specifically protein translation. Mutations occur in nucleic acids, not proteins.
fifthmonarchyman,
We can write messages in sand, plant trees in the shape of a word, or write “Fuck off tourists” in turnips on a hillside which then becomes a message written in sheep … That we can use DNA to encode data is non-controversial and trivial.
fmm keeps making this mistake: ‘the genetic code’ means ‘anything to do with xNA sequence’.
The title of the this thread is Code denialism.
Will this work?
from here https://books.google.com/books?isbn=061861916X
quote:
DNA messages are written in a true alphabet.Like the Roman,Greek and Cyrillic writing systems, the DNA alphabet is a strictly limited repertoire of symbols with no self evident meaning. Arbitrary symbols are chosen and combined to make meaningful messages of unlimited complexity and size. Where the English Alphabet has 26 letters and the Greek one 24, the DNA alphabet is a four letter alphabet.Most useful DNA spells out three-letter words from a dictionary limited to 64 words, each word called a ‘condon’. Some of the codons in the dictionary are synonymous with others,which is to say the genetic code is technically degenerate.
end quote:
Richard Dawkins
peace
I do suppose that Darwinists think that hearts and teeth arose spontaneously (not planned). I don’t think they believe they arose from the primordial soup but from more primitive structures which in turn arose spontaneously (not planned) from still more primitive structures.
If you follow that spontaneous unplanned train back far enough it lands you squarely in the primordial soup.
In the case a code I know of no more primitive structures that it could have arisen from. I don’t think you can have a noncoding code. The concept itself is sort of a oxymoron.
I would think a functioning code would have to spontaneously arise from the soup intact and ready to go to be of any use.
peace
I’m not making an argument
peace
FWIW, I don’t agree with a good hunk of this, and I actually don’t think you do (or should do) either.
People actually ARE convinced by arguments for (e.g.,) the existence of God, and they may at some later point come to believe that those arguments were not sound. I think the human condition is such that communication, progress, science, comity, etc. requires us to try to get past those of our biases that we recognize.
I did my dissertation on Spinoza and, at the time, I was either a pantheist or desperately wanted to find a good argument for pantheism. (It’s hard to tell the difference, I think.) Now, I’m not a pantheist, largely because I don’t think any argument that I’ve seen is any good, and, while I continue to think it’s a pretty view, the desperation of my youth has dissipated.
Anyhow, if you go into discussions believing both that you will not change your mind and that neither will anybody you are talking to, you’re not really having an interchange that could be anything but a waste of everybody’s time. Maybe you and some others here do that. I don’t.
And that lack of imagination is why you are not going to be the one to crack the puzzle of the origin of life.
fmm,
I ask again, would Larry or Crick agree with you that the genetic code was designed by an intelligence? You seem to be ignoring that question.
All you have to do is say yes or no.
Ah, argument from ignorance. I’m convinced!
Let’s compare that against what you believe. God (don’t ask where it came from) makes dust into living beings. That sounds several more orders of magnitude more improbable then a “code springing to life fully formed” to me. Yet you choose to believe goddit rather then god-made-a-universe-that-contained-the-capacity-to-do-it.
The latter I cannot argue against. The former you have no evidence for. Yet that’s what you’ve chosen to argue.
That’s bot output. Check your circuits and ensure that none of it is energized.
If we are talking about the Christian God this is just incorrect. You come believe in the Christian God if and only if the Christian God chooses to revel himself to you. It’s a supernatural process called regeneration. You might want to check it out.
As far as the other various “gods” folks can and do choose to believe in them or not as it suits their fancy. But we are not talking about any old run of the mill deity here
peace
Quoth the raven: “nevermore”.
Or if your parents happen to be Christian.
Tell me fmm, are your parents also Christian? Is your community largely Christian?
It’s funny how your Christian god seems to only reveal himself to people who are already immersed in that belief system. I’m sure it’s just a big co-incidence.
Sure it is.
How? Logically you’d have to wait until god chose you. Otherwise are you suggesting that walto goes and reads about it. How did you hear about it? Did you read about it first before it ‘happened’ to you?
You do know your god was not even around for most of recorded history?
Yes, your god is special because it acts differently to all those other gods that don’t exist. Except it does not, does it? It never appears, it never answers prayers, it never saves the dying.
So your god is exactly the same as all the others.
fmm,
I ask again, would Larry or Crick agree with you that the genetic code was designed by an intelligence? You seem to be ignoring that question.
Yes or no?
fifthmonarchyman,
This is just stupid word gaming. ‘Arose spontaneously from the primordial soup’ is, at the very least, extremely poorly expressed, if all you claim to mean is ‘not planned by God’.
The mechanism of generating the genetic code may be very like that for hearts and teeth. It’s just that you can visualise an organism without a heart, but not one without a genetic code (do I need to remind you that the genetic code is not ‘DNA’, but ‘DNA-RNA-protein?).
‘Primordial soup’ is but one version of abiogenesis. It is a strawman position.
If you can have a replicator that does not require protein, you can have a living organism without a genetic code. The genetic code is specifically codon-amino acid association.
So you DO mean instant when you say ‘spontaneous’? Make your mind up.
fifthmonarchyman,
Well, no, people who make arguments from authority generally aren’t. They are using an expert to make an argument for them. You have attempted in other posts to argue that the genetic code is a real code (do you deny that?). Now you quote first Larry Moran and then Richard Dawkins in support of the argument-you-claim-not-to-be-making.
Why even mention the primordial soup if you don’t think this is the medium in which the code is thought (by ‘Darwinists’ (FFS!)) to arise? That is why it is a strawman position. The fact that one must trace back to some abiogenesis scenario or other is no more relevant to the code than it is to teeth.
This thread was started by a scientifically illiterate Creationist. What scientists ever said the genetic code isn’t a code?
No Weasel. Dawkins was making another analogy. You agreed analogies aren’t evidence.
Funny how you always forget what you’ve written previously when making your next dodge.
Why do you ask me to check out “regeneration” if you believe what you said in the post I was responding to, according to which there is no substantive point to any conversations? What is the purpose of any of your posts, if you cannot be convinced of anything and nobody else can either? It’s quite clear that you are pushing a position and not just blabbing for the purpose of amusing people with whom you disagree.
In sum, why do you keep insisting that you are not making arguments when, In reality, you’ve made arguments in, perhaps, one out of every three posts of yours here? And you have made thousands of posts, I believe.
Re the specialness of your own favored deity, pretty much every theist seems to take that view. Perhaps it is your conversations among that group that has led you to the theory that nobody can ever be convinced of anything through rational argumentation. FWIW, while I have had that experience too, among theists and atheists alike, thankfully, it has not been universal. If it had been, I suppose I might now think it would be best for everyone to follow Wittgenstein’s early advice to remain silent. I would certainly not proselytize on the internet.
Adapa,
I’d be pushing it to call myself a scientist, but I have argued that there are sound semantic reasons to regard it as not a code in any of the ‘other’ senses of the word – ie, the ones that don’t specifically refer to codons and amino acids. It’s easy to represent it as a code – to map it – and to send messages with it. But messenger RNA is not a message.
There is no reason why you can’t understand where I’m coming from. You can understand a position with out adopting it.
A big part of why I post here is to try and explain what Christians actually believe. It is clear to me that most of the folks who frequent here have a jacked up twisted understanding of what Christianity is. I would consider it a success if I could help to impart a more accurate understanding to you all.
There is also the possibility that God might choose to use some of what I write to comfort the faithful or as a means to accomplish some other ends he would like.
This will seem odd but at times my experience here is a form of worship. I don’t sing or paint so thinking and talking about God’s glory is often the best I can do.
Worship when you boil it down to it’s essence is nothing but telling the truth about God. That is why I think science is a sacred enterprise and it bugs me when it is politicized and tainted with bias.
Finally I enjoy the give and take here. It helps me to clean up and organize my own ideas.
peace
I’ve had some advances from a couple of His advance men myself, but so far we haven’t been able to agree on terms. I’m hearing a lot of talk about “eternal life” and “bliss” when I’ve been perfectly clear that what I’m interested in is a bigger cut of current residuals. 🙂
What, bias like the bias you don’t even realise you are showing?
Yes, it’s a problem. For example, when you can’t even answer a simple question with a yes or no answer you probably want to reflect on why that is
Would Larry or Crick agree with you that the genetic code was designed by an intelligence? You seem to be ignoring that question.
Yes or no?
Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Person B: “But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge.”
Person A: “Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Just waiting for a response that proves fifthmonarchyman has no idea what point this makes …
Whadda I get when I’m right?
I just missed it in the commotion.
I think Crick holds to some kind of panspermia I have no idea what Moran’s position on the origin of life is. I’m not even sure what my position on the origin of life is.
I would assume that Crick and Moran do not acknowledge the existence of the Christian God if that is what you are asking.
peace
If you believe that you can have a say as to the terms it’s not hard to see why you don’t get this at all.
😉
When it comes to an infinite God the only appropriate response is unconditional surrender.
peace
No it’s not what I’m asking and you know it.
To you, all codes are designed. You have provided quotes from Larry and Crick saying that DNA is a code. You are saying how Larry and Crick and Dawkins agree with you that DNA is a code. Yet your definition of “code” includes “was created by an intelligence” as the only codes you know about were designed.
Your conflation between “fmm-code” and “code” has been noted.
Or replacing it with something with actual morals.
fifthmonarchyman,
A big part of why I post here is to try and explain what the evolutionary paradigm actually amounts to (with the caveat that I do not have a hotline to The Truth). It is clear to me that many antis have a jacked up twisted understanding of what evolution means. I would consider it a success if I could help to impart a more accurate understanding to y’all.
I’m not convinced my words even register with you, however.
Let me help you out. A bearded man breathed life into some dust, no?
No, fmm does not seem capable of stepping out side his box for even a moment. He simply can’t see a problem with using authorities that fundamentally disagree with him to bolster his case.
fmm does not know much about codes, but he knows that DNA was designed!
fmm does not know much about the origin of life, but he knows that cakes don’t bake themselves!
When it comes to the odious genocidal tyrant christian god, the only moral response is total refusal and life-long fight against it, even though the cost might be eternal torment. Better torment than licking its boots for eternity.
Allan Miller,
Although I do accept that the fault could lie with me for not picking the right ones.
Amen to that. It amazes me people are still worshipping such a horror.
Sure, you created the universe but did you have to be such a dick to the people you put in it?
Poor God, always embarrassed by his human friends.
Why do you think he never shows himself on earth?*
Glen Davidson
*If there be a God, spare us the Biblical claims to the contrary.
Get into a time machine, go back ~2000 years, get it inserted into the bible then it’ll be unquestioningly accepted by all and sundry, simply because it’s in the bible.
Or being logical, or actually caring about evidence.
How is a true believer to be in the presence of such impiety?
Glen Davidson
That is not part of my definition of Code
see what I mean about a jacked up idea of what Christians actually believe?
peace
Better to love than to hate.
fifthmonarchyman,
I know, right? The Strawman Version. Oh, the irony!
No deity is run-of-the-mill to the persons who believe in it. So, your belief is pretty much run-of-the-mill.
Mung,
Last seen under a picture of Kim Jong-un … ? But no, show me the goods and I’ll give a response to it. Hard to love or hate a rumour.