Semiotics of DNA. Logical Evidence for Intelligent Design.

reply to post by dragonridr


I've read three or four already. I was asking because if you click on the two links below
and check out the dates. Well, you'll see my confusion.


Link

Above top secret

That's the only reason I ask.

Psss.... I didn't create this thread amigo . Shhh

rhinoceros

ServantOfTheLamb
Semiotics cannot be accounted for through the terms of physics or chemistry, and require the input of intelligent life.

Nope. You're welcome to join the discussion in this thread. Good luck trying to refute the evidence. Let's keep it fact-based

Went to the thread rhino and love it. The pre-biotic amino acid definition accretion is evident in the record of physiological employment of amino acids, matching the prevalence of such compounds naturally formed in the atmosphere, of meteoric origins, and at hydrothermal vents. This all makes sense. However, two of the three top physiologically demanded (Aspartic and Glutamic Acids, one critical for energy synthesis and the other critical for structure assembly) pre-biotoc proteins and as well, representing two of the top three prevalence proteins under R(occ) in Table 1, employed solely 3 digit codons for their transcription base, and are framed in such that they had to have maintained this assignment from first employment. They stand as an exception to the other 8 pre-biotics which employed a suggestively accretive 2 digit codon discrimination; as well as the start and stop codes employing 3 digit discrimination in this same structure. These proteins, in organic chemistry being defined as critical alpha-hydrogen amino's, and the separate start stop definitions would have had to be among the first amino acids employed by life. Prevalence in abundance and physiology confirms this.

So I am curious as to which came first, the three digit codon definition structure, or the definition assignments themselves? Because definition assignment of ASP and GLU were among the first negative side chain alpha's which had to assign in order for abiogenesis to occur. Yet they depend upon 3 digit codons.

To date I had not thought this to be the case, understanding from my education that three digit definition was a gradually accretive eventuality, a feature outcome well after abiogenesis and not as a precursor.

Good stuff

reply to post by randyvs


different group and 11 years later does that help with your confusion read the article.Point is how these DNA strands were created. You said it wasnt possible for DNA to organize itself i have proof it can.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


Well originally would be the 2 digit codon since we know that 2 nucleotides are needed for most proteins the 3rd can be anything this is a major clue that DNA evolved from an even simpler code.A simple example is ACG,ACA,ACC,ACU all give you threonine so the 3rd digit means nothing just a place holder.that would mean originally genetic code evolved from a simpler form that encoded fewer amino acids.That leads to the conclusion that a doublet code that encodes 4x4=16 amino acids (or 15 plus a termination codon). This is where the theory of a simplet code came in saying DNA evolved when it needed more Amino acids.

Astyanax
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

There is no need to debate genetics, semiotics, information theory or biochemistry. You are simply reiterating Paley's Watchmaker argument. It is as old as the hills, and has been thoroughly debunked.

Perhaps someone has already pointed this out in the thread, which I confess I have not bothered to read since there is nothing new on this topic to discuss. Semiotics is an impressive word but it doesn't really mean much.

Definitely not the Watchmakers argument. I believe God is still working in the world.

reply to post by dragonridr



Alright Dragon, I'll concede the point you're making
against my statement and retract the statement. And just ask you for your own honest opinion
regadring one question. What do you believe the chances are, for any of this synthesis of
life to happen on it's own, in an uncontrolled environment, with absolutely no imposition
what so ever ? Do you believe:

A. The facts and evidence, indicate no reason to believe it could not happen.

B.No matter what, we will be able to use Gods own creation to disprove God
merely by explaining the bio mechanics of life.

C. I don't want to use any of Randys mock up answers to the question. because I
want to explain this in my own terms.

D. Not a bat crap chance in hell.

E. All of the above

Oh and yes that helps. I knew you would have the answer as all I saw was CONSPIRACY !
But I knew better than that at least. lol

randyvs
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Alright Dragon, I'll concede the point you're making
against my statement and retract the statement. And just ask you for your own honest opinion
regadring one question. What do you believe the chances are, for any of this synthesis of
life to happen on it's own, in an uncontrolled environment, with absolutely no imposition
what so ever ? Do you believe:

A. The facts and evidence, indicate no reason to believe it could not happen.

B.No matter what, we will be able to use Gods own creation to disprove God
merely by explaining the bio mechanics of life.

C. I don't want to use any of Randys mock up answers to the question. because I
want to explain this in my own terms.

D. Not a bat crap chance in hell.

E. All of the above

Oh and yes that helps. I knew you would have the answer as all I saw was CONSPIRACY !
But I knew better than that at least. lol

edit on 21-9-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Let me say evidence seems to be that life will all ways find a way to survive and even yes create itself. Its almost like the universe itself needs us and in a way i think it does. Because if you look into physics without an observer nothing is set. As we learned in physics just the act of observing causes matter to actually choose a state from many possibilities. The moment the universe came in to existence it can be argued it had to create life we are needed to observe its many wonders. I know this is getting a bit philosophical but unfortunately the only way to answer your questions. Do i think a god created the whole thing no but i do believe we had to be here just as stars had to form.I think we are truly apart of the universe and someday we will realize just how connected we are.

reply to post by dragonridr

Let me say evidence seems to be that life will all ways find a way to survive and even yes create itself. Its almost like the universe itself needs us and in a way i think it does. Because if you look into physics without an observer nothing is set. As we learned in physics just the act of observing causes matter to actually choose a state from many possibilities. The moment the universe came in to existence it can be argued it had to create life we are needed to observe its many wonders. I know this is getting a bit philosophical but unfortunately the only way to answer your questions. Do i think a god created the whole thing no but i do believe we had to be here just as stars had to form.I think we are truly apart of the universe and someday we will realize just how connected we are.
edit on 9/21/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

No doubt philosophy has much to do with the question. I enjoyed the exchange and your answer.

TheEthicalSkeptic
So I am curious as to which came first, the three digit codon definition structure, or the definition assignments themselves? Because definition assignment of ASP and GLU were among the first negative side chain alpha's which had to assign in order for abiogenesis to occur. Yet they depend upon 3 digit codons.

To date I had not thought this to be the case, understanding from my education that three digit definition was a gradually accretive eventuality, a feature outcome well after abiogenesis and not as a precursor.

Good stuff

Three-digit code or even amino acids in general are not prerequirements for abiogenesis. RNA world without any proteins is feasible and has been confirmed in laboratory experiments where autocatalytic RNA sets formed spontaneously from short strands of RNA. That's abiogenesis for you..

All I see here is the inescapable argument out of ignorance, acting on the presumption that lack of a better answer is the same as having the correct answer.

AfterInfinity
All I see here is the inescapable argument out of ignorance, acting on the presumption that lack of a better answer is the same as having the correct answer.

edit on 23-9-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I believe what your looking for is the phrase god of the gaps. Any time humanity has not understood why something happens god did it. Although oddly seldom takes the blame for bad stuff like natural disasters. Where we are at now in our current history religion is actually holding us back its a remnant of the past. It obstructs social change it hinders scientific research and even worse dumbs down the populous.

rhinocerosThree-digit code or even amino acids in general are not prerequirements for abiogenesis. RNA world without any proteins is feasible and has been confirmed in laboratory experiments where autocatalytic RNA sets formed spontaneously from short strands of RNA. That's abiogenesis for you..

Forgive me, but I do not think that those two realities address the exception issue, to your original astute observation. I am not sure I am aware of a theoretical pre-biotic primitive form of expressive life which did not base its provenance on the possibility of a coacervate; and a coacervate forms from proteins and non aromatic hydrocarbons. RNA is life yes, but we are hinging our context of discussion on the expressive-definition of codons, not simply the existence of carbon-prime spline based nucleotide replication.

RNA is single stranded, short sequenced, less robust, and utilizes uracil in place of thymine - nonetheless, RNA still employs a three digit codon and the same start and stop parameters. If it did not then transcriptase and tRNA could not perform their expressive function. RNA has indeed been constructed in absence of proteins and has been confirmed in laboratory experiments - however, this does not excuse the issue and we still run into the same difficulty as DNA: the issue of first-demand proteins being frame-locked into a 3 codon definition which is parametrized by the other 2 codon defined pre-biotic amino acids. In other words, all the pre-biotic protein assignments bear their archaic definitions.

Our first expressive replicating life, whether archaea or eubacter, employing a simple cytoplasmic genophore still employ a 3 digit codon, despite an ancient phylogeny and pre-chromosomal structure. So in theory here we have in abiogenesis, the collision between a replicating carbon-prime RNA structure and a cohesive coacervate in protein and hydrocarbon.

And in this theoretical abiogenesis, two of our top 3 pre-biotic amino acids assigned immediately to a 3 digit discriminated and framed dependency. The lesser proteins assigned of course to a 2 digit discrimination, as you astutely point out. It is possible then that natural selection simply never differentiated the final digit in those cases, because the third digit did not provide an evolutionary advantage, except in the case of aspartic and glutamic acids; not that the final digit did not exist.

This is still a question. (Not one which disproves evolution by any means - it does not, and that is not my point - I am simply pointing out that the logic has some violations which force us to a plural set of possibilities).

So, the whole thing about cave pictures of robo-dinosaurs being ridden by primitive robots is NOT proof of intelligent design? And what about the flying spaghetti monsters? Did they truly originate from some form of primitive non-flying manicotti, or did they just instantly appear at the command of the God-King Boyardee? Intelligent design is almost like believing in things like 'miracles' and 'angels' or a book written so long ago by propehts that just makes things up and calls them the 'truth'. Intelligent design is useless, especially if you have "God-like" powers anyway! Duh!

I want my intelligently designed pink unicorn, please!

This topic failed at its start, as evolution does not explain beginning of life, but change and adaptation we and all other life forms on earth are experiencing.

Abiogenesis is what you guys are after, just for your info...

reply to post by SuperFrog

This topic failed at its start, as evolution does not explain beginning of life,

What about panspermia?

AfterInfinity
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

This topic failed at its start, as evolution does not explain beginning of life,

What about panspermia?

What about it?

Distribution/seeding of life through space is proven as possible in latest findings in meteorites. That still does not cover beginning of life. That is covered by abiogenesis.

Are you trying to imply that god used parmspermia to start life on earth?

ps. Note age when that term was created, just before dark age of human history otherwise known as religion awakening.

pps. Do you know story behind beginning of life in old Egypt religion? Question that always bothers me, why that is now days called Egypt Mythology, where so called modern religion are based on the same absurd stories of old Mesopotamia and Egypt people.

Frankly, there are a lot of normal misconceptions here about semiosis during protein synthesis. The proponents are typically just as unaware of the actual details as the opponents - and the opponents are very unaware. You might consider reading through additional information.

I can offer you the general argument in a single paragraph. In the end, the argument is completely defensible - it makes no false assertions of fact, and the conclusions logically follow from the premises.

In a material universe, it is not possible to transfer any form of recorded information into a material effect without using an arrangement of matter (or energy) as an information-bearing medium. If that is true, then other material necessities must follow. Firstly, such a medium must evoke an effect within a system capable of producing that effect. Universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. Secondly, if a medium contains information as a consequence of its arrangement, then that arrangement must be physically arbitrary to the effect it evokes. Again, universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. And thirdly, if an arrangement of matter requires a system to produce an effect, and if that arrangement is arbitrary to the effect it evokes, then the system itself must contain a second arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between the arrangement of the medium and its effect. Once again, universal observation and logical necessity demonstrate this to be true. If each of these things are true, then in order to transfer and translate any form of recorded information, the process fundamentally requires two arrangements of matter operating as an irreducible core within the system. And because Darwinian evolution requires the transfer and translation of recorded information in order to exist itself, it cannot be the source of this system. Given these observations, a mechanism capable of establishing this semiotic state is necessary prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution and information-based organization.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


Ok look at it this way Why have 64 possible combinations that only program 20 amino acids? See i read an article that explained this ill try to find it. But the logic was simple enough lets say we have a doublet code but DNA reads 3 codons like it does now. That means that either the first codon or the last would be ignored depending on where in the strand it was placed.This explains why some amino acids can be translated from groups of 2, 4 or 6 codons.When you break it down this way you actually see that combining arrangements of these doublet codes together, you can replicate the table of amino acids.This would also explains how the structure of the genetic code maximizes error tolerance. For example, ‘slippage’ in the translation process still manages to produce another amino acid with the same characteristics, and explains why the DNA code is so good at maintaining its integrity. So let me see if i can make this simple. Lets say we have a DNA strand with a doublet code will say serine being UC in our doublet code. And we have a dna strand that starts out UCUUAAA. UC= serine ignore next U reads UA nothing assigned because in 3 digit code this is stop codon. Now we move to 3 digit code we get UCU = serine UAA = This is stop codon so again only serine is produced. When you look at DNA as originally a 2 digit code it makes sense why certain codes are in a the way they are in a 3 digit code. We dont get that mathematical symmetry and looks messy but it explains why.

You guys are arguing over things that don't mean anything to whether or not there is ID or not.

If there is a God, it is not dictated how be brought about the life that we see today.

Nothing is dictated, and nothing that science has found is in contradiction to the possibility of an intelligent designer.

Science knows very little about the universe or existence; and to think that darwinian evolutionary mechanisms might explain away the possibility of intelligent design is insane considering how little we know.

I've always struggled to reason why atheistic types of people used evolution as their "silver bullet"; as
the Genesis account even says: "let the earth bring forth living creatures".

It's cute how people think this absurdly infant scientific knowledge of genetics can be used as any sort of evidence in any direction. It's so very cute; albeit incredibly naive.

sdb93awd
You guys are arguing over things that don't mean anything to whether or not there is ID or not.

If there is a God, it is not dictated how be brought about the life that we see today.

Nothing is dictated, and nothing that science has found is in contradiction to the possibility of an intelligent designer.

Science knows very little about the universe or existence; and to think that darwinian evolutionary mechanisms might explain away the possibility of intelligent design is insane considering how little we know.

I've always struggled to reason why atheistic types of people used evolution as their "silver bullet"; as
the Genesis account even says: "let the earth bring forth living creatures".

It's cute how people think this absurdly infant scientific knowledge of genetics can be used as any sort of evidence in any direction. It's so very cute; albeit incredibly naive.

edit on 28-9-2013 by sdb93awd because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2013 by sdb93awd because: (no reason given)

Your starting with a false hypothesis evolution wasnt designed to to explain away intelligent design. It was proven to explain the natural universe which is all science tries to do. If there was proof of intelligent design then that would be the leading scientific consensus. Science isnt about disproving anything and its up to anyone believing in intelligent design to prove there hypothesis. As you say its cute how you try to manipulate archaic beliefs to try to make them seem relevant. Its cute but incredibly naive may want to crack open a science book some day.