DNA, Where did the code come from?

@neologist,

Be sure to close the shutters!

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I have every confidence that science will 'explain' DNA coding sufficiently for the purposes of prediction and control, which are the goals of science. As for ultimate answers, that word indicates a simplistic religious mindset hooked on 'absolutes' as mythical as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

As for ultimate answers, that word indicates a simplistic religious mindset hooked on 'absolutes' as mythical as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Not that I'm being critical, but everyone wants 'ultimate' answers. That is especially true of those in science. Whether it's Einstein's Grand Unification Theory, the latest flavor of String Theory or that of Multiverses, it's all in a quest for the ultimate answer.

It is also very evident in those of your persuasion who look for the answer in chaos and randomness and chance.

Do I want the ultimate answer? You bet your sweet ass I do.

2 Replies

You'd just be lost if you didn't ascribe beliefs and motives to people. Not that you have any basis for doing so, but you don't let that stand in your wary.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

"everyone"? Literally "everyone"? My mileage varies considerably. Most people I know don't show any signs of giving a crap about much more than how to improve their immediate lot in life. Asking deep and difficult questions is a good way to not get invited out to things. Even in just this forum, the majority of members don't get involved in the difficult, science, philosophy or religion debates. We keep seeing mostly the same old names cropping up in thread after thread on related subjects.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

You'd just be lost if you didn't ascribe beliefs and motives to people. Not that you have any basis for doing so, but you don't let that stand in your wary.

That is really hilarious as I think of all the recent A2K postings about language, it's shortcomings and the futility of exchanging meaning by using it. Is it an imperfect method, of course, but it's not futile.

Do I attempt to see the beliefs and motives behind your (and everyone elses') words? Of course I do. The only sin here is denial of the reality that that is what we are here to do.

@FBM -
Yep, pretty much everybody except the comatose. People do need occasional distractions though, even me. But who knows what that lady quietly knitting in the corner is contemplating. It's not possible to know unless she says something.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

...
@FBM -
Yep, pretty much everybody except the comatose. People do need occasional distractions though, even me. But who knows what that lady quietly knitting in the corner is contemplating. It's not possible to know unless she says something.

Well, that contradicts my experience to date. I'll have to ask you to back that claim up with something more substantial. It seems pivotal to your argument(s) in general.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

It sounds to me as though you'd rather make sh*t up about what people mean and what their motives are than to take what they say at face value. Even someone dull-witted should be able to see why i have almost no respect for what you post here. You have no business attempting to associate me with what others post here about language. If you can't quote my posts making a claim, then you're just peddling BS, as usual.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

If they can produce offspring, then they aint different species, is (sic) they, Farmer? Says here:

.

Remember that a human (John Ray or Karl Linneaus) created the term "species" back in the 1700's. What defines a species is the "UP" with which we are still catching.(We give Mayer the credit for linking the "reproductive component to the definition)
The boundary of species is , for several cases , blurred ( SEVERAL bear species, Crows and Ravens, Neanderthals and Homo s s , etc etc)> What about the gazillions of "Species" that reproduce asexually.
A species can FREELY and EASILY exchange genes within itself. That doesnt deny that hybridization can occur based upon proximity of the end members (Asian lions {now extinct} and Indian tigers), wolves and coyotes ) Does the existence of hybrids cancel the old definition? Probably not but it needs to be refined, thats why I like the "Freely Exchange" phrase be left in there.

ORR, forget the whole classification thing and just call stuff "After their kind" like The CREATIONISTS wish ( Though Thatd be just stupid IMHO).

Differing gene complements (up to some mathematical limit of which we presently do not comprehend well enough) apparently does NOT prevent hybridization in some cases.

Remember what Darwin himself said

" I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties"

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

As far as I can tell, no one is really addressing the question asked, i.e., where did the information in DNA come from.

I believe that horse was coughing up blood and died many pages ago, you probably will have trouble reviving her.
In a refrain, the memo of which you probably missed

A. DNA arose by natural means, and science presuming that it was initiated under totally natural laws that govern chemical reactions, is diligantly experimenting in order to understand the various reactions, linkages, and bondings involved

OR

2GOD DIDIT.

You may pick one from column A or one from column 2.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

It's always possible that science will eventually get to column 2.

Unless you've decided otherwise in advance.

But that wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

what would happen to your worldview if it was column A?

SCience is very flexible no matter what the bedrock composition

1 Reply

@anthony1312002,

anthony1312002 wrote:

DNA, Where did the code come from?

DNA probably evolved from RNA. RNA is a replicator, similar to DNA but simpler and less high-fidelity, that also works as an enzyme. (This resolves a chicken-and-egg problem where DNA depends on proteins to copy and synthesize it, proteins need enzymes to catalyze them, and enzymes need DNA to encode them.)

RNA, in turn, very likely evolved from simpler replicators still. But since its predecessors did not leave fossils, nor any chemical equivalent thereof that we know, we don't know what the first replicator was and how the evolution from it to RNA went.

anthony1312202 wrote:

When I consider the beauty of it all, I’m convinced that life was designed by God.”

What about the beauty of God, then? Who designed her?

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Men 'designed' god(s).

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gödel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable: "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."

With respect to 'ultimate answers' I concur with Hawking.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

DNA probably evolved from RNA. RNA is a replicator, similar to DNA but simpler and less high-fidelity

RNA is physically simpler but the information encoded by the order of the nucleotides is EXACTLY the same as it's DNA equivalent.

RNA does nothing to solve the 'Where did the code come from' puzzle.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

With respect to 'ultimate answers' I concur with Hawking.

I see Hawking's position as the only one he could take when reaching the end of his rope. He ends up concluding 'It all came from nothing'. No one really finds that a satisfactory answer unless the alternative is too uncomfortable.

Back in the real world, the Standard Model of physics is being reinforced and the few remaining holes in it are quickly being filled in. Physicists are crossing their fingers that the LHC will come up with something unexpected to give them a longer rope but so far the rope is only getting thicker & stronger. The Higgs boson might be where it ends.

Hawking, et al are running out of room for their own 'God of the Gaps'.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

what would happen to your worldview if it was column A?

I have thought about that.

If that turned out to be the case, then I would have to give more serious consideration to my hypothetical solution to the atheists' question of 'Then where did God come from' because proving column A would lend credibility to that solution.

Keep in mind that the primary source of my theology is personal experience and as interesting as the mystery of the DNA code and ID stuff is, it has almost nothing to do with that experience.

As truly amazing as DNA and the associated biological machinery is, DNA only describes a body.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Farmer, I've asked you several times now: Do you think it's possible that there is other intelligent life in the universe, besides what is on this planet?

Quote:

This hypothesis relies on the vast size and consistent physical laws of the observable universe. According to this argument, made by scientists such as Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking, it would be improbable for life not to exist somewhere other than Earth. This argument is embodied in the Copernican principle, which states that Earth does not occupy a unique position in the Universe, and the mediocrity principle, which states that there is nothing special about life on Earth.

About 1 in 5 Sun-like stars[a] have an "Earth-sized" planet in the habitable zone,[c] with the nearest expected to be within 12 light-years distance from Earth. Assuming 200 billion stars in the Milky Way,[d] that would be 11 billion potentially habitable Earth-sized planets in the Milky Way, rising to 40 billion if red dwarfs are included. The rogue planets in the Milky Way possibly number in the trillions.

Based on observations from the Hubble Space Telescope, there are between 125 and 250 billion galaxies in the observable universe.[148] It is estimated that at least ten percent of all Sun-like stars have a system of planets,[149] i.e. there are 6.25×1018 stars with planets orbiting them in the observable universe. Even if we assume that only one out of a billion of these stars have planets supporting life, there would be some 6.25×109 (billion) life-supporting planetary systems in the observable universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_life

1 Reply

@layman,

YOU DID?

If the operative is "intelligent" I do not know. I think that there is a good probability that there is some kind of life.(Screw the "dice throwing" of the Drake equation or Fermi, I think we are seeing bits of real data that are consistent with the possible existence of organisms out there)

If life is in a Carbon base, then we should ask the question whether there is a universal commonality in its forms. Seeing that specific amino acids and nucleotides are detected in spectra from about our galaxy can give us several options.
1. These spectra are reporting back with real data on the commonality of life

2. The data is not real but an example of "birefringence" of our lenses and antennae
3. If its real, they are possibly indicative of assembly of prebiotic molecules

3a. Or not

Whatever , they are being studied more and more closely as we woop multispectral scanners into space and peer around every corner of space. I really dont pay much bother to statistical inference. Ive had so much applied dimensional statistics in my day to day that Im quite aware of its weak spots in accurate decision making.

1 Reply

DNA, Where did the code come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know