The Nirenberg and Matthaei experiment was a scientific experiment performed on May 15, 1961, by Marshall W. Nirenberg and his post doctoral fellow, Heinrich J. Matthaei. The experiment cracked the genetic code by using nucleic acid homopolymers to translate specific amino acids.
The Nirenberg and Leder experiment was a scientific experiment performed in 1964 by Marshall W. Nirenberg and Philip Leder. The experiment elucidated the triplet nature of the genetic code and allowed the remaining ambiguous codons in the genetic code to be deciphered.
The Marshall W. Nirenberg Papers Public Reactions to the Genetic Code, 1961-1968
Nevertheless, the problem of the genetic code at least in the restricted one-dimensional sense (the linear correlation of the nucleotide sequence of polynucleotides with that of the amino acid sequence of polypeptides) would appear to have been solved.
In the years after 1953, scientists scrambled to be the first to decipher the genetic code. In an attempt to make the race interesting, theoretical physicist and astronomer George Gamow came up with a plan. He organized an exclusive club, the “RNA Tie Club,” in which each member would put forward ideas as to how the nucleotide bases were translated into proteins in the body’s cells. His club had twenty hand-picked members, one for each amino acid, and each wore a tie marked with the symbol of that amino acid. The group—which did not include Marshall Nirenberg—met several times during the 1950s but did not manage to be the first to break the code.
Genetic memory resides in specific molecules of nucleic acid. The information is encoded in the form of a linear sequence of bases of 4 varieties that corresponds to sequences of 20 varieties of amino acids in protein. The translation from nucleic acid to protein proceeds in a sequential fashion according to a systematic code with relatively simple rules. Each unit of nucleic acid defines the species of molecule to be selected, its position relative to the previous molecule selected, and the time of the event relative to the previous event. The nucleic acid therefore functions both as a template for other molecules and as a biological clock. The information is encoded and decoded in the form of a one-dimensional string. The polypeptide translation product then folds upon itself in a specific manner predetermined by the amino acid sequence, forming a complex, three-dimensional protein.
Scads of scientists. Two Nobel Prizes. Isn’t consensus science grand?
“…the fact is that present life requires semiotic control by coded gene strings.”
– Howard H. Pattee
The subtitle of the book I am reading: Howard Pattee’s classic papers on the physics of symbols with contemporary commentary.
The abstract of the final paper in the book begins as follows:
Pattee, H. H. (2007) The Necessity of Biosemiotics: Matter-symbol Complementarity. In Introduction to Biosemiotics, Marcello Barbieri, Ed., Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 115-132.
http://www.binghamton.edu/ssie/people/pattee.html
So yes, I think it is. Why wouldn’t I?
Please let me know if you ever come across an instance of me saying “DNA is a code.”
I don’t think DNA is a code and I don’t believe I have ever said that DNA is a code.
Mung,
I prefer to make my own arguments, and don’t get much mileage out of dissecting the words of people who aren’t here. The odd word might strike a chord, but the sentence as a whole does not accord with my own view. ‘Control’ is one thing, ‘semiotic control’ quite another. And the word ‘coded’ seems to be being used in a different sense again. This is a common issue. The genetic code is a very specific thing: triplet mapping. Is an RNA coded? Not in the same sense it ain’t.
Harold? Harold? Nope, no reply.
And I’ve not just been finding the links, I’ve actually been reading as well. It is interesting. Any insight into what led them to propose the existence of a code in the first place?
Mung,
They had technology to sequence proteins, and had established that a gene mapped more-or-less onto a single protein, repetitively produced. They knew that DNA was a linear polymer, and could tell from genetic experiments that DNA mutations caused a specific change in the amino acid sequence. In particular, 1-, 2- and 3- base changes had markedly different effects.
Stop quibbling and make a point. why is this important to you?
I will answer the question that Mung will not answer.
The genetic code is a read only code.
One can follow it as a template to produce stuff, but one cannot write new messages in it.
New messages occur as mutations. the mutation has either no effect (neutral) or a beneficial effect or a detrimental effect.
One cannot tell in advance what the effect will be.
It is not a coders code.
Mung, i posted the first response to you and you have not answered my question. Are you going to get around to that?
This is nonsense.
Skepticism about how we use “symbol” and “code” go back at least to skepticism about the Physical Symbol Hypothesis of Newell and Simon, and that’s a lot older than the ID movement. Religious people would have mostly agreed with the skeptics back then.
Mung can’t defend his faith, he can’t defend ID, and he can’t defend his code fixation.
IDists seem to treat words as incantations.
Find the right word and something magic happens.
No idea what, but something magic.
They seem to have no interest in the territory being mapped.
petrushka, you’re the one who created the “What Is A Code?” thread. If I read you correctly, you don’t really care what a code is.
I’ve been going back through that thread, looking to see if you ever got an answer to that question. I see a lot of what a code isn’t. How do people know that the genetic code isn’t a code unless they know what a code is?
And if it helps you rest any easier, I actually have a plan.
I care about how things work. I see no magic in how we label events and processes.
If you have something interesting or useful to say, I would appreciate seeing it.
That’s the spirit, Mung. What are the entailments of a code? A coder?
Neil (the mathematician), are you hanging around hoping to learn what a ‘real code’ is? Why not contact your friends in Coding Theory and ask them?
Mung,
To distract people so they don’t notice that you don’t have an argument?
Nixon said he had a plan.
Good question. One I actually find interesting. I would think that a code requires a code-maker. But, and this may be hard for people to believe, I’m not the one insisting that humans are the only code-makers. That would be confusing me with most of the ‘skeptics’ here at TSZ.
🙂
He should have encoded his recordings.
Why does a code need a code maker?
mung why do you believe that codes require code makers (without importation of any question-begging premise)? That is, what is it about codes that you believe makes them require coders?
And please (please!) don’t mention what they’re commonly called. Because most of these threads have focused on that. That just gives us a tight little circle.
Mung, why are you afraid of my question?
I never said a code requires a coder. I think coder here carries the baggage of human activity, and like I said, I don’t think that humans are the only code-makers. Something has to establish the rules of a code.
No. I’m not.
Okay, codes have rules. I agree. So does physics. Is physics a code? Is physics a coder?
Mung, I think everybody here knows that you don’t restrict code makers to humans. But you restrict code makers to intelligent beings, right?
So, we want to know why that is. (Again, without question-begging or noting that these codes are called “codes.”)
Could you explain what you mean by “code-maker” vs “coder”?
No. But we really are getting ahead of ourselves. 🙂
I don’t have an argument that would entail that code-making requires intelligence.
Would that something be a (drumroll) Intelligent Designer oh fence sitter?
Does DNA-making require intelligence?
Coder implies someone writing software (coding). Code-maker is is about actual codes (not coding or encoding) and is neutral, imo, about how the particular code arose.
I not only avoid “DNA is code” I also avoid “DNA is software.” I don’t think DNA is a program for creating organisms, but it’s not a template for creating organisms either, and I’ve not been using the word code as a synonym for software.
People have raised the specter of equivocation. From the fact that the opportunity for equivocation exists it does not follow that I am actually equivocating over any of the terms I’ve been using.
Ok. Sorry.
But you’re so mysterious!
Mung:
From the fact that an opportunity exists to present an argument, it does not follow that Mung actually has (or is capable of fomulating) an argument.
I would say trollish.
I don’t think Moran says that. In fact, he seems to draw a distinction between codes and the sequences of symbols that we use codes to interpret.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2007/02/real-genetic-code.html?m=1
Mung, do you disagree with UB’s admissions regarding “semiotic theory?”
How would you answer my last question?
When the algorithms for protein folding and active sites are discovered I’ll start believing there’s hope for finding a mechanism.
I was hoping you’d find that sexy. :pout
I have to say walto, you are among those here at TSZ who I always feel like I can have a conversation with. It’s not like there’s some continual need for conflict. So please forgive me if I fell short of full disclosure. I did try to answer your questions.
seconded
peace
Mung,
You didn’t answer RB’s question:
I hope Gregory isn’t hearing this–you guys are not helping my election chances against keiths and hotshoe. X>{
Stow it!
Sensible.
Sure. I think I was just pointing out that they think it’s a “code” but not an “intelligently designed code” which is how ffm sees codes.
This is beyond pathetic- petrushka doesn’t get to say what IDists imply. Only someone who is very desperate would do that.
The genetic code is positive evidence for ID for the simple reason that intelligent agencies can produce codes and mother nature cannot. So based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships the genetic code was intelligently designed. And all you can do is whine about it as you surely cannot refute that claim.
Address the comment, not the commenter, please, Frankie.
mRNA codons represent amino acids which makes it a symbolic system.
I did. petrushka tried to put words in the mouths of IDists. That is dirty tactics but I understand why you would condone such a thing.
Well when you get some support for your position be sure to let the world know. I bet you will win a Nobel prize for your discovery.
By what? People created Morse code. What created the Genetic code? Surely not people.