Let's discuss the genetic code

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
It's incredible how a thread "disproving" evolution has 50+ pages everytime and this one gets 1 page after almost 1 month. Cheers on the great work explaining certain concepts, I learned a little more today.




posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by JameSimon
 


Yeah i know, right. People are more attracted to drama and than actual knowledge and information. You'd think some people would at least want to learn about what they are attacking. Comical, but I guess a reflection of how drama plays such a huge role in society.

A thread named:

"Scientific research about gorilla lineage"

will never get the same attention as

"ABSOLUTE PROOF that evolution is a LIE!!!!"

A sad, unfortunate reality of this modern technological society. We definitely need some Vulcan influence.
edit on 24-8-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
So, this thread has been here for over one year. Clear facts that strongly argue for evolution. Evidence/rational arguments to the contrary posted in this thread? None. Conclusion?



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Its no surprise that a great thread like this gets ignored by creationists who are too ignorant to challenge it.

Another embarrassment for the ATS community.



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Before Genetic code existed and the associated codons and proteins and amino acids, was there another 'style' of genetic code or DNA which competed with the present 'style'? Like of completely different molecules and such, I know you mentioned that in different DNA the same molecule or codon can be used to perform different functions, or that 6 of one creates one thing, while 2 of that same one creates another thing, but im wondering if biology on earth was able to utilize any other format for containing the genetic code besides what we know all biologic life uses?

Im also wondering if we hypothetically are able to code DNA ourselves? If we know all the building block codon pieces, and we know in sequence what means what, are we able to place things in certain order to come up with a viable outcome of a life form?

Also if we know how many codons a certain life form has, can we create a million different sequences using random orders of codons, and create new creatures, or at least potentially novel mutations?



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Before Genetic code existed and the associated codons and proteins and amino acids, was there another 'style' of genetic code or DNA which competed with the present 'style'? Like of completely different molecules and such, I know you mentioned that in different DNA the same molecule or codon can be used to perform different functions, or that 6 of one creates one thing, while 2 of that same one creates another thing, but im wondering if biology on earth was able to utilize any other format for containing the genetic code besides what we know all biologic life uses?

The NCBI currently lists ~20 translation tables of different genetic codes. But, if you're asking if there are more ways in which DNA 'works' then the answer is yes. There's for example nonribosomal protein synthesis, which isn't associated with ribosomes and thus the genetic code. Likewise non-coding RNA has nothing to do with the genetic code and its function is due to how the RNA folds (so completely different from genes->proteins->function 'style'). RNA alone can do quite amazing things, like form autocatalytic (self-replicating) sets into the domain of natural selection. Considering that all the core catalytic functions of protein synthesis are still carried out by RNAs (especially by the small and large ribosomal RNAs) there's very strong consensus that RNA life preceded the current overall 'style' of life.


Originally posted by ImaFungi
Im also wondering if we hypothetically are able to code DNA ourselves? If we know all the building block codon pieces, and we know in sequence what means what, are we able to place things in certain order to come up with a viable outcome of a life form?

Organism are changed daily in thousands of laboratories (probably huge underestimate) and in synthetic biology protein-coding genes from organism X are altered at the DNA sequence level so that they for example work better in organism Y. However, I'm not certain if any proteins have been designed from scratch, but then, most proteins in nature are basically collections of just a few (like maybe 50-60) different domains (short stretch of amino acids that fold in some particular way like for example a-helix transmembrane domains). I'm not sure if autocatalytic RNA sets have been designed, but they have been observed to spontaneously arise from mixtures of short RNA fragments (very recent related article).


Originally posted by ImaFungi
Also if we know how many codons a certain life form has, can we create a million different sequences using random orders of codons, and create new creatures, or at least potentially novel mutations?

Organism are more than just protein-coding genes and their codons. Primarily, there's the whole non-coding side that functions at the RNA level. We have the ability to create billions of novel proteins but as I pointed above, I'm not sure if any proteins have been designed from scratch (there are no super-reliable algorithms that predict protein folding and function from sequence given no other information). In synthetic biology scientists have also introduced completely new amino acids previously unknown to nature into protein synthesis in at least bacteria and yeasts. As to new 'creatures', that completely depends on where you draw the line between two species. In bacteria and archaea, a certain degree of homology (I think > 97%) of the 16S rRNA gene is taken as a sign that two organisms belong to the same species. Apply that to Eukaryotes, and everything between humans and lemurs belong to the same species..



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
It's difficult to avoid seeing terms like the "DNA code" being used in this forum. To me at least, this term wouWeld imply code similar to a computer program, with recursive algorithms and such. However, in real life, no such term exists. The correct term is the "genetic code", which is simply a collection of translation tables with minor differences. According to each translation table, a triplet of nucleotides (all together 64 unique ones), read from the messenger RNA molecule by the ribosomes, define either an amino acid that is to be added to the growing polypeptide, or signal termination of translation. Below is the "universal" translation table:



As we see, the code is not random. As an example, all the four codons that begin with CC, define the amino acid Proline. As such, these codons are called synonymous. Be it CCU, CCC, CCA, or CCG, in the messenger RNA molecule, the bit of information is always interpreted similarly, that is, a Proline is added to the growing polypeptide. As we see, all together, in the universal genetic code, 8 blocks of codons are 4-fold degenerate (Leu, Val, Ser, Pro, Thr, Ala, Arg and Gly). The rest of the sixteen 4-fold codon blocks are split between two or more alternatives. As an example, the amino acid Leucine is defined by CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, and by UUA and UUG. The other two UU codons, that is, UUU and UUC, specify the amino acid Phenylalanine. So in total, 6 different codons specify Leucine, but only two codons specify Phenylalanine. Here I would also like to note, that with the exception of the AUN and UGN codon blocks, the split codon blocks are always split so that U and C ending codons define one amino acid, and G and A ending codons another. The chemical rationale for this is, that U and C are pyrimidines, and A and G are purines. Purines and pyrimidines have different kinds of carbon rings. To keep things simple, I just note that purines have two fused rings, whereas pyrimidines have a single ring, i.e. purines are much larger than pyrimidines.

There are 10 pre-biotic amino acids. That is, no biological pathways are needed to generate them, instead in experiments such as that of Miller, these amino acids can come to be through strictly abiotic chemical reactions. Interestingly, 8 of these 10 amino acids are specified by the 4-fold degenerate codon blocks (Leu, Val, Ser, Pro, Thr, Ala, Arg and Gly). The additional two pre-biotic amino acids share the GAN codon block, and are Aspartic acid (GAU, GAC) and Glutamic acid (GAA, GAG). All the other amino acids need to be synthesized by biological pathways which involve proteins. In this context, it appears that these amino acids were added to the genetic code only after pathways for their generation were in place. For example, many amino acids are byproducts of metabolic pathways, and prior to them being added to the code, they might have represented waste products, much like how alcohol is a waste product of fermentation.

In this context, the observation that 6 codons still define 3 amino acids (Arg, Leu, and Ser), makes sense. We can extrapolate, that for example the now split UUN codon block was reserved for Leucine entirely. That is, 8 codons in total, UUU, UUC, UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, and CUA, all represented Leucine in the primordial genetic code. Likewise, e.g. UAN and UGN codons all signaled termination of translation. In the context of the evolving code, the present day distribution of codons makes sense. However, some people insist that genetic code was designed. Would it not be fair then for these people to explain, why exactly does the present day code for example have 6 codons for Argine, but only one or two for Tryptophan, depending which genetic code we infer (e.g. in human nuclear DNA UGA signals stop, but in many mitochondria, UGA encodes Tryptophan)?

I hope we can keep the discussion civil, and provide references for the claims made.

For reference and further information:

arxiv.org...
www.sciencedirect.com...

I think the lack of Creationists comments here may be do to the fact that you are not truly making scientific argument alone. You are making an argument against I.D.
I enjoyed reading your op up to the point that you stopped with the science and started with your opinion.
I learned a good bit and thanks to you I plan to research it more.
It would seem that you know a great deal on the subject. It is amazing that we can look at Creation and be able to understand how it works............but the true question is WHY it works.
Here in 2013 the knowledge we have accumulated is only a drop in an ongoing ocean of knowledge we have yet to discover.
Quad



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Thanks for the information, I will spend some time looking through it. For the first paragraph though, I dont know if you touched upon this, you did briefly by mentioning RNA, but I was more wondering if completely different kinds of 'DNA like systems' are theorized to have been tried and tested in nature before RNA/DNA was proven to be the 'best or perfect' candidate for coding.

DNA and RNA uses a finite number of specific molecules right? In its structure and functioning and the molecules that are used in a code like manner in sequence. Im wondering if its though there were completely different molecules and coding techniques used or if DNA was the default and determined organization of material to get the job of life done?

Also was there early forms of life that didnt use RNA or DNA (basically what came first, the life or the code of life?), or was there early non genetic life, simple biological bits and pieces, that bumped into one another and interacted, and some failed and some turned into more novel and larger biological bits and pieces and one of those bits and pieces that occurred often and well was RNA and some how it ended up within another bit of biological material and.. stuff like that.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
It's difficult to avoid seeing terms like the "DNA code" being used in this forum. To me at least, this term would imply code similar to a computer program, with recursive algorithms and such. However, in real life, no such term exists. The correct term is the "genetic code", which is simply a collection of translation tables with minor differences. According to each translation table, a triplet of nucleotides (all together 64 unique ones), read from the messenger RNA molecule by the ribosomes, define either an amino acid that is to be added to the growing polypeptide, or signal termination of translation. Below is the "universal" translation table:



As we see, the code is not random. As an example, all the four codons that begin with CC, define the amino acid Proline. As such, these codons are called synonymous. Be it CCU, CCC, CCA, or CCG, in the messenger RNA molecule, the bit of information is always interpreted similarly, that is, a Proline is added to the growing polypeptide. As we see, all together, in the universal genetic code, 8 blocks of codons are 4-fold degenerate (Leu, Val, Ser, Pro, Thr, Ala, Arg and Gly). The rest of the sixteen 4-fold codon blocks are split between two or more alternatives. As an example, the amino acid Leucine is defined by CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, and by UUA and UUG. The other two UU codons, that is, UUU and UUC, specify the amino acid Phenylalanine. So in total, 6 different codons specify Leucine, but only two codons specify Phenylalanine. Here I would also like to note, that with the exception of the AUN and UGN codon blocks, the split codon blocks are always split so that U and C ending codons define one amino acid, and G and A ending codons another. The chemical rationale for this is, that U and C are pyrimidines, and A and G are purines. Purines and pyrimidines have different kinds of carbon rings. To keep things simple, I just note that purines have two fused rings, whereas pyrimidines have a single ring, i.e. purines are much larger than pyrimidines.

There are 10 pre-biotic amino acids. That is, no biological pathways are needed to generate them, instead in experiments such as that of Miller, these amino acids can come to be through strictly abiotic chemical reactions. Interestingly, 8 of these 10 amino acids are specified by the 4-fold degenerate codon blocks (Leu, Val, Ser, Pro, Thr, Ala, Arg and Gly). The additional two pre-biotic amino acids share the GAN codon block, and are Aspartic acid (GAU, GAC) and Glutamic acid (GAA, GAG). All the other amino acids need to be synthesized by biological pathways which involve proteins. In this context, it appears that these amino acids were added to the genetic code only after pathways for their generation were in place. For example, many amino acids are byproducts of metabolic pathways, and prior to them being added to the code, they might have represented waste products, much like how alcohol is a waste product of fermentation.

In this context, the observation that 6 codons still define 3 amino acids (Arg, Leu, and Ser), makes sense. We can extrapolate, that for example the now split UUN codon block was reserved for Leucine entirely. That is, 8 codons in total, UUU, UUC, UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, and CUA, all represented Leucine in the primordial genetic code. Likewise, e.g. UAN and UGN codons all signaled termination of translation. In the context of the evolving code, the present day distribution of codons makes sense. However, some people insist that genetic code was designed. Would it not be fair then for these people to explain, why exactly does the present day code for example have 6 codons for Argine, but only one or two for Tryptophan, depending which genetic code we infer (e.g. in human nuclear DNA UGA signals stop, but in many mitochondria, UGA encodes Tryptophan)?

I hope we can keep the discussion civil, and provide references for the claims made.

For reference and further information:

arxiv.org...
www.sciencedirect.com...


You seem confused as to why your OP hasn't attracted much attention so I have taken the liberty of reviewing for you.

To be honest it reeks of arrogance and vanity. Your opening few sentences say it all. If anyone who is not a biologist chooses to talk about the DNA code and this annoys you then that's fine. But to infer that everyone should be familiar with scientific parlance is arrogant.

You should have constructed your OP along the lines of a scientific press release where little or no prior knowledge of the topic is assumed by the author. This is a basic concept commonly seen in scientific fields, even down to undergraduate level.

The OP is littered with assumptions of the reader. For example, when you refer to certain codon blocks you use the letter N but do not explain that it refers to any nucleobase. There are many other examples of such assumptions. Also you frequently touch on subjects that you could have left out, this only serves to confuse and patronise the reader. It should be noted that a codon table is text book stuff and is taught at high school level. Another point, you bring up the term "DNA code" but then go on to discuss the RNA translation table. It would have been more appropriate to refer to a DNA table throughout.

Also, it's Argenine, not Argine.

What is absolutely astounding about this post is that you have basically taken the results from the paper you have linked as further reading (at the bottom of your OP) and taken credit for them as being your own observations. You have on many instances even copied directly from the text!! Nowhere have you referenced the paper either. Many universities and institutions take plagiarism very seriously and I guarantee you that if you had handed your OP in as a piece of course work then their plagiarism software would have detected this in a flash.

What I don't get is why would you include the paper in the link in the first place?

Anyway, i see you have a few followers on here and i'm sure i'll get flamed for this post but first i'd like to invite them to read the paper first and see for themselves. It's a fantastic read and is extremely easy to follow, unlike your condensed version of it. The paper is here:

arxiv.org...

To summarise, your OP isn't accessible to many readers and is extremely patronising. However, the biggest issue with this post is the fact that you have taken credit for the work of others.

If I get the chance I'll try and review some of your other threads







edit on 8-9-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-9-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-9-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-9-2013 by helldiver because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





why exactly does the present day code for example have 6 codons for Argine, but only one or two for Tryptophan, depending which genetic code we infer (e.g. in human nuclear DNA UGA signals stop, but in many mitochondria, UGA encodes Tryptophan)?


For the life of me, I don't know.


Why doesn't the iphone have a bigger screen?

Because that's how they decided to make it I guess.....




It can't be dumped down much more.



You are actually explaining something very complex (DNA) in which you have obviously done a great deal of research.




Thank you for explaining it for dumb guys like me.


Sir Francis Crick the co discoverer of DNA


said this:


Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.


Why? Because it is extremely complex and can appear to have been engineered or designed.

He also stated that


An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.



Sir Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel also proposed the theory of Directed Panspermia




A co-discoverer of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule, Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally.



A brilliant scientist who discovered DNA and was in support of evolution, proposed that an advanced civilization may have seeded the Earth.


Because DNA was too complex to have occurred naturally.




I'm a pretty dumb guy.

But I would like to, in my own way, illustrate what some on ATS seem to believe.

A person sees a cake.






But they want to believe that the cake was not made by someone else.

Why?


They believe that the cake just came into existence. So they spend years and figure out the ingredients.

They can explain what the ingredients are and how the ingredients bond together.

But they still don't quite have the recipe.


However, in their own mind they "prove" that nobody baked that original cake.

So they just use the cake that was already baked, and customize it.




Some on ATS want to deny the existence of a Baker,


In doing so they want to have their cake

and eat it to..........

Link
edit on 8-9-2013 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Hi helldiver,

Let's start with why you are posting in this thread, I suspect it has something to do with this post. That's to say, you seem to have a bone to pick with me.


Originally posted by helldiver
You seem confused as to why your OP hasn't attracted much attention so I have taken the liberty of reviewing for you.

Oh, I have a good idea why creationists have been avoiding this thread..


Originally posted by helldiver
To be honest it reeks of arrogance and vanity. Your opening few sentences say it all. If anyone who is not a biologist chooses to talk about the DNA code and this annoys you then that's fine. But to infer that everyone should be familiar with scientific parlance is arrogant.

Sorry, instead of just throwing up insults you could have actually pointed out the alleged arrogance and vanity. I have not expressed that it annoys me when "anyone who is not a biologist chooses to talk about the DNA code". Instead, I have pointed out what this "code" actually is (instead of just being some vague idea).


Originally posted by helldiver
You should have constructed your OP along the lines of a scientific press release where little or no prior knowledge of the topic is assumed by the author. This is a basic concept commonly seen in scientific fields, even down to undergraduate level.

This is what I did to the best of my ability. You think you can do better? Go ahead..


Originally posted by helldiver
The OP is littered with assumptions of the reader. For example, when you refer to certain codon blocks you use the letter N but do not explain that it refers to any nucleobase. There are many other examples of such assumptions. Also you frequently touch on subjects that you could have left out, this only serves to confuse and patronise the reader. It should be noted that a codon table is text book stuff and is taught at high school level. Another point, you bring up the term "DNA code" but then go on to discuss the RNA translation table. It would have been more appropriate to refer to a DNA table throughout.

The meaning of the letter N should have been dead obvious from the context. Nobody else complained/asked about it, which could mean that it indeed was that obvious. Please list the "many other examples". What are the subjects that could have been left out? Codon tables are indeed text book stuff, yet the majority of non-biologists are not aware of them. I brought up the term "DNA code" only in the sense that there is no such thing/concept in science.


Originally posted by helldiver
What is absolutely astounding about this post is that you have basically taken the results from the paper you have linked as further reading (at the bottom of your OP) and taken credit for them as being your own observations. You have on many instances even copied directly from the text!! Nowhere have you referenced the paper either. Many universities and institutions take plagiarism very seriously and I guarantee you that if you had handed your OP in as a piece of course work then their plagiarism software would have detected this in a flash.

This starts to piss me off. You claim that I'm taking credit for the things laid out in my OP. How did you infer this? Not once do I use words like "my" in the OP. And then you lie. What instances have I copied directly from the text, go ahead and point these. Nowhere have I referenced the paper, except when I list it at the end of my OP as a reference. What did you expect, citations after each sentence, because that's totally the norm at ATS and internet forums in general, right?


Originally posted by helldiver
What I don't get is why would you include the paper in the link in the first place?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because I tend to provide references, even in the internet.


Originally posted by helldiver
Anyway, i see you have a few followers on here and i'm sure i'll get flamed for this post but first i'd like to invite them to read the paper first and see for themselves. It's a fantastic read and is extremely easy to follow, unlike your condensed version of it.

Yes, my minions will destroy you. The paper is good, it's also 12 pages long. However, my post covers a different aspect of the whole thing and not everything that is in my post is in the paper (and vice versa). Hence also the second article, which is also a good read.


Originally posted by helldiver
To summarise, your OP isn't accessible to many readers and is extremely patronising. However, the biggest issue with this post is the fact that you have taken credit for the work of others.

I haven't taken credit for the work of others (this is your imagination). Why did you even bother posting? Your only contribution seems to be that you spotted a typo..



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

To be honest it reeks of arrogance and vanity. Your opening few sentences say it all. If anyone who is not a biologist chooses to talk about the DNA code and this annoys you then that's fine. But to infer that everyone should be familiar with scientific parlance is arrogant.


That wasn't the point of the post. It was about those who deny scientific phenomena without having a full understanding of it. That pretty much defines arrogance. It's perfectly fine to discuss and ask questions, but when folks try to use it to prove something that it doesn't prove, or to deny an establish field of biology, it becomes hypocrisy. The same holds true for those that have a ridiculously high standard of proof for evolution, yet choose to believe in a religion without any tangible evidence to support it. It's not arrogant to talk about something you understand and debate certain aspects of it, but when you have pretty much zero understanding of how that thing works and still try to say it's wrong it only reflects poorly on the person who's in denial.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
ok so i admit i didnt read all the posts, only the OP and first page. I'm not very scientific though i enjoy reading about science in general.

Rhino...i noticed in your breakdown that you used the term 'natural'....as in natural selection, processes etc. Without looking up that term I'd like to know what 'natural selection' etc means in the context of describing how the various amino acids and their components are made and how it is decided what should be 'kept' and what should be 'discarded'.

I'm a believer in ID, so i hope you'll forgive what may appear to be some ignorant or otherwise dumb sounding questions...im just sorta thinking out loud here.

1. if i read it right, dna is made of nucleotides which are themselves composed of various atoms, i.e. carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous etc. At the core of the process by which dna is created, how do the atoms which make the nucleotides know how to order themselves in order to create the dna and then the amino acids?

let me ask it another way.....

starting from the very beginning of this entire process of going from atoms to amino acids....at each step what are the guiding forces that cause the components to organize in such a way that they are useful or can create life?

2. If we can synthesize amino acids, which are the building blocks of life, (you mentioned that some aminos need biological pathways to be created?) and it seems like we understand the process pretty well....why arent we able to create life without the biological pathways? Or are we? Can we use completely chemical processes without biological pathways to create those biological pathways that are needed to create the other amino acids?


Sorry if those questions dont make sense. I really do think you did a pretty good job of breaking down the process and describing the various components and steps. As an ID believer perhaps im handicapped in a way by staring at the complexity of some of these things that you and others say arose or were created by completely natural processes within the context of the forces of 'nature'. When i see 'natural' used as the basis of an explanation for how or why things happen it just seems like a very loaded 'cop out' kind of word thats sort of a stop gap for a lack of understanding about how or why these things 'just work'.

not trying to derail the discussion from the dna angle.....but since dna is composed of atoms at the first step or as the first cause....i naturally cannot help but wonder what gives the elements/atoms their properties to begin with. Maybe thats still an incomprehensible mystery to the smartest scientists....but i still cant help but wonder. It seems like at every step from atom to Adam, pardon the pun, there is a mysterious 'something' that imbues meaning and order to every part of the process.


I remember once while studying animal evolution they were talking about how different animals get their traits. They spoke of how the giraffe got its long neck, for example, and i remember how 'they' said it was because over time there were leaves on taller and taller trees and that the giraffe had to reach higher and higher to get them. I remember thinking very clearly at the time, not being predisposed to religion etc, how nonsensical that explanation seemed. I thought to myself 'you mean somehow the giraffe stretching its neck as far as it could go, and somehow 'needing' to reach higher, told the dna, the cells, etc....to grow the neck longer?

ok, thats all for now....thanks for the well thought out thread.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by instigatah
 


Without looking up that term I'd like to know what 'natural selection' etc means in the context of describing how the various amino acids and their components are made and how it is decided what should be 'kept' and what should be 'discarded'.

It means nothing in the context of how amino acids are synthesized. It's a gradual process by which traits within a given population become more or less frequent, usually as a result of the effect on the probability of reproductive success for that population within its environment. If a trait is truly deleterious, it will be selected out of the population; if a trait is truly advantageous, it will be selected for in a population; if a trait is neutral, then it may disappear or stay depending on other factors.


1. if i read it right, dna is made of nucleotides which are themselves composed of various atoms, i.e. carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous etc. At the core of the process by which dna is created, how do the atoms which make the nucleotides know how to order themselves in order to create the dna and then the amino acids?

The atoms don't know anything. No need to anthropomorphize them. The way atoms bond to form molecules is a function of the laws of physics that govern chemical reactions. It's actually ridiculously easy to form amino acids from very simple smaller molecules, and amino acids polymerize into polypeptide chains readily.


2. If we can synthesize amino acids, which are the building blocks of life, (you mentioned that some aminos need biological pathways to be created?) and it seems like we understand the process pretty well....why arent we able to create life without the biological pathways? Or are we? Can we use completely chemical processes without biological pathways to create those biological pathways that are needed to create the other amino acids?

Just because we haven't done it yet doesn't mean we won't ever be able to do it. It's like saying that we can't travel faster than the speed of sound in an airplane because the Wright brothers were unable to do it on their first flight.


When i see 'natural' used as the basis of an explanation for how or why things happen it just seems like a very loaded 'cop out' kind of word thats sort of a stop gap for a lack of understanding about how or why these things 'just work'.

You mean like how the "intelligent design" movement uses God as a stop gap for a lack of understanding about how or why these things "just work"?


I remember once while studying animal evolution they were talking about how different animals get their traits. They spoke of how the giraffe got its long neck, for example, and i remember how 'they' said it was because over time there were leaves on taller and taller trees and that the giraffe had to reach higher and higher to get them. I remember thinking very clearly at the time, not being predisposed to religion etc, how nonsensical that explanation seemed. I thought to myself 'you mean somehow the giraffe stretching its neck as far as it could go, and somehow 'needing' to reach higher, told the dna, the cells, etc....to grow the neck longer?

I agree, that is a very nonsensical claim about how giraffes got long necks. Whoever explained evolution to you in that way was doing you no favors. That explanation has far more to do with the long-discredited concepts of Lamarckism than evolution.



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


ok im editing because i realize you have a problem with the word design

edit on 8-8-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Never Give Up,...Never Surrender!!



posted on Sep, 20 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Doesn't someone have to write the code??

DNA kinda is a program, that operates as an application in this universe.

Its function is to replicate itself by machining atoms into a mirror of itself.

This molecule is billions of atoms long, encoded into a double helix structure!

Look at how the first cells begin replication, seed and egg, its a miracle!!

When the egg meets sperm
www.youtube.com...



Eukaryotic Cell Cycle | Biology | Genetics
www.youtube.com...



The cells even somehow wirelessly communicate....how? Who built the wireless router in them?

The eggs look like they even have a force field around them!

With like your saying the atomic bonds all working together and not fighting each other. A little tricky to pull off. IBM has been playing with atoms, Imagine placing atoms like this one by one or having a machine do it, and you just type it out into a string of a billion atoms that can be its own machine!

A Boy And His Atom: The World's Smallest Movie
www.youtube.com...


I would argue that this thread gives creationists the upper hand!

Creationism + Evolutionism - Bull = Truth!

We are Molecular Machines!

IBM has done work with all kinds of nano technologies, its quite amazing. Potential for free energies too!
edit on 20-9-2013 by AbleEndangered because: added: The World's Smallest Movie, changed: Creationist + Evolutionist to Creationism + Evolutionism


adding:
In this video The kind lady describes the chromosomes creating a sphere and splitting into 2 poles. The programmer that wrote this was applying a polar function that already exists in the universe. Kinda like A windows Application grapping a resource from Windows.

Biology : Meiosis - cell division
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVMb4Js99tA
edit on 20-9-2013 by AbleEndangered because: addition and added 2 videos
edit on 20-9-2013 by AbleEndangered because: added video





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join