|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 14:10
How did nature, unguided, undirected, make code?
I've seen stuff that says DNA may have developed from RNA, but before that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 14:17
It didn't.Close thread:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 14:22
Oh - I knew it would be you, Ritch - you just couldn't resist the temptation! ๐
Now we know your view, let's see if we can find out what others think.
I'm hoping a Biochemist can have an input here.
Or I'll have to lumber into research mode.
Post Edited (Wed 13 Jun 17:39)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 14:25
I couldn't;)...i will be interesting to hear though how code could arise naturally with no intelligent input.
Over to the boffins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 14:27
Good lad, Ritch - you are a sport after all - sometimes ๐
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 14:29
;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 13 Jun 14:38
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 14:51
Ref: WORST
Date: Wed 13 Jun 14:38
OK I don't own this thread and I'm sometimes guilty of going off-topic myself but. thank you for your input WORST, but I'm hoping to answer the specific question I put and not get into GOD v NO GOD ping-pong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 14:55
Here's a link that seems relevant but boy o boy is it a difficult read.
Any Biochemist out there able to tackle this in layperson's terms?
ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF THE GENETIC CODE: THE UNIVERSAL ENIGMA
(an article peer-reviewed and ready for publication)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
(source: NCBI - National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine)
Also relevant: Origin and Evolution of the Universal Genetic Code.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28853922
Post Edited (Wed 13 Jun 17:39)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 13 Jun 15:57
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 16:24
Ref: WORST
Date: Wed 13 Jun 15:57
Hm. I'm not getting into those things. Might do if you start a new thread for them!
But really I want to make some headway with the OP. Might need to wait a long time for somebody else, so here goes. I'm gonna start studying that document I hot-linked above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 13 Jun 16:37
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Wed 13 Jun 16:38
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 16:56
Pay attention WORST or you'll wind up like one o' these blokes on a football forum who keeps duplicating other folks' links! ๐
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Wed 13 Jun 17:39
Shambles:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 17:51
I'm getting somewhere. It's a case of trying to get it clear and simplify it.
Got to go eat again! (Always having to b***dy eat - sometimes it's darned inconvenient!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 21:45
ORIGINS OF CODE IN NATURE - Part 1
Animals and plants have the same DNA code system.
What does it do?
Contains instructions for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce.
About its origins, there are a few main theories, but itโs all still very much a work in progress.
It seems that the questions: โwhy is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?โ, โthat were asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.โ
(Paraphrased from ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF THE GENETIC CODE: THE UNIVERSAL ENIGMA by Eugene V. Koonin and Artem S. Novozhilov)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
Now thereโs honesty for you. Who says Science is all lies?
Post Edited (Wed 13 Jun 22:12)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 13 Jun 21:46
ORIGINS OF CODE IN NATURE - Part 2
What is DNA made of?
Molecules. (Keeping it simple)
How do molecules store information?
As code. In the form of sequences of the nitrogen bases, Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine.
How do these molecules/coded bases make things work?
The sequences are converted into messages that are used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies.
How are the sequences converted into messages, how do they become active and how do they make other things do work?
Enzymes read the information in a DNA molecule and transcribe it into a molecule called messenger RNA.
How? With a notepad and pen?
The information is then translated into the โlanguageโ of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. It tells the cellโs protein-making machinery the precise order in which to link the amino acids to produce a specific protein.
โOi Machine! โ Two oโ these, one oโ these, one oโ them and three oโ them!โ
โOK boss!โ
How does it all happen? Beats me. ๐
So yes, Ritch. Iโve got great faith in Science, because although Iโve got little idea of how code came about or works, I still believe in Science as the main means of enquiry .
I tell you what though โ at least we can share the wonder and amazement.
(sources: Iโve read several, but this is the main one: )
https://www.genome.gov/25520880/deoxyribonucleic-acid-dna-fact-sheet/
(National Human Genome Research Institute)
Post Edited (Thu 14 Jun 01:26)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Thu 14 Jun 13:51
I do as well,i have nothing against real science and what you described above is real science.
Science has nothing to say about the origin of coded information.It can only observe what actually is.
Everything that science has discovered,reasonably points to a mind/intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 14 Jun 15:26
<<< Science has nothing to say about the origin of coded information.It can only observe what actually is.>>>
Hee hee we're off again Ritch!
I'm still reading stuff. I can't yet give an opinion. As I'm reading I'm coming up with questions but it's hard to know what the essential questions are. so as to try and narrow down to ideas in the right ball park. For example,
How simple could the first life form have been?
Is a single-celled bacterium the simplest possible life form?
It is suggested that DNA - coded material - could have existed long before life itself.
David Attenborough may not be the most reliable source but what he says in this video* is I think, a useful 'handle' on the subject:
Life on earth is thought to have begun about 3.8 billion years ago.
What were conditions then? Six hour days (faster spinning earth), volcanic landscape. According to latest theory (at time of vid) - stuff spewing out of undersea thermal vents formed big towers of deposits on which colonies of microscopic bacteria developed.
STOP. Rewind.
Colonies of microscopic bacteria.
Must've been self-replicating?
Self-replication requires code? Biological self-replication, that is.
Haven't got much further, but I've come across 'time-crystals' How do crystals form? No code? Any relevance?
Also Matthew Powner - working on how DNA could have formed by chance (May 2017):
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/chemists-may-be-zeroing-chemical-reactions-sparked-first-life
(Attenborough vid:)*https://youtu.be/o7-SqWqlG8I?t=449
<<< Everything that science has discovered, reasonably points to a mind/intelligence. >>>
Perhaps! And paradoxically, I find that it's science rather than religion that keeps me from saying you must be wrong. ๐
Post Edited (Thu 14 Jun 15:34)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: WORST
Date: Thu 14 Jun 15:34
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 14 Jun 15:42
Ref: WORST
Date: Thu 14 Jun 15:34
<<< DOH! ๐ >>>
I know that feeling well. Perfect word for it. ๐ ๐
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Thu 14 Jun 17:16
Science has found nothing that is incompatible with a six day creation OAUTP.A 13.4 billion year old universe makes major assumptions.It's far from science as we understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Thu 14 Jun 18:44
There was a biologist did a study on what he called irreducible complexity. It was based on codes and organisms that have components which only work when complete yet they are so complex they could not have evolved over time. You would need to watch the YouTube film to fully appreciate his theory.
The theory was rejected by the wider scientific community but I cant understand their reasoning. Far too heavy reading for a man of faith lol.
Seriously I would appreciate someone explaining the objections to me. That isn't sarcasm btw its a genuine request. I think the theory is perfectly plausible but I dont want to accept it in ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Thu 14 Jun 19:22
After posting that I found quite a lot I hadn't seen before. There are issues with the theory but I'm far from convinced by the rebuttals too.
The eye examples are typical evolutionary speculation....no examples of all the millions of stages required. Just massive jumps between species.
The wee flaggi motor thing is explained better but the reduced examples are not performing the same functions as the complete ones.
The whole thing is present in the most basic single cell organism so how could it have evolved from the similar destructive ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 14 Jun 20:11
Ref: PARrot
Date: Thu 14 Jun 18:44
Sounds interesting Parrot.
Can you recall anything more about the video so I can find it?
Her's one, by Michael J Behe called 'Irreducible Complexity':
https://youtu.be/NaVoGfSSSV8
Could be it? Very interesting. Proposes that a bacterial flagellum motor? could not function if any one of its 40? parts were absent. I heard something similar before but never looked into it, so thank you for pointing it out.
Another fascinating thing to consider and study!
I knew about irreducible complexity in connection with the human eye. I'm satisfied that the eye is not irreducibly complex and that a (for me) plausible route has been suggested for its evolution.
But that bacterial flagellum motor looks impressive.
I've looked at a couple of vids that claim to de-bunk the argument of Michael Behe but they don't satisfy me.
All I can say is I'm aware that there's far more to Evolution theory than Darwinian theory alone and so just debunking Darwin wouldn't be such a big thing.
Is irreducible complexity real? I have to give it more thought.
Post Edited (Fri 15 Jun 00:30)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 14 Jun 20:24
Ref: richie5401
Date: Thu 14 Jun 17:16
<<< Science has found nothing that is incompatible with a six day creation OAUTP.A 13.4 billion year old universe makes major assumptions.It's far from science as we understand it. >>>
Oh dear - all these different subjects coming thick and fast, and I've only got broad ideas about some, for instance, water erosion of hard rocks in streams - isn't that a good indicator of a world older than you suggest? Radioactive half-lives come to mind. I should've written down the reasons why I believe certain things as they came to me over my long lifetime.
Post Edited (Thu 14 Jun 23:19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 14 Jun 20:34
Why, I'm so old I remember when the Himalayas were just molehills! ๐
Post Edited (Thu 14 Jun 20:42)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 14 Jun 20:56
<<< 13.4 billion year old universe makes major assumptions.It's far from science as we understand it. >>>
Proof the world is exceedingly ancient:
Post Edited (Thu 14 Jun 20:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Thu 14 Jun 23:11
^ Gid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
