The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2015, 04:34 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 09:22 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
"Looks like a language" or "works like a language" may mean using the term "language" is an easy metaphor, but it doesn't mean IS a language. To be a language, it has to be a means of communicating not just information, but meaning. DNA does the former, but not the latter. It is simply a self-replicating molecule, nothing more. No one would call the "glider gun" program a "language" in the sense you are using it, but it works rather like DNA, copying itself endlessly by its basic structure.

[Image: 29477.gif]

(Edited to reverse former/latter. It's what I get for posting at 5:30 in the morning.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
14-08-2015, 04:48 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 04:51 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Rocket, you may also be interested in this example of a self reproducing CA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton%27s_loops

Quote:They consist of a loop of cells containing genetic information, which flows continuously around the loop and out along an "arm" (or pseudopod), which will become the daughter loop. The "genes" instruct it to make three left turns, completing the loop, which then disconnects from its parent.





Look down the bottom of that wikipedia page and it lists many variants. One that caught my eye was:

Quote:Evoloop[9] (1999): An extension of the SDSR loop, Evoloop is capable of interaction with neighboring loops as well as of evolution. Often, the greatest selection pressure in a colony of Evoloops is the competition for space, and natural selection favors the smallest functional loop present. Further studies demonstrated more complexity than originally thought in the Evoloop system.[10]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
14-08-2015, 05:14 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 05:18 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(14-08-2015 01:23 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 06:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Constantly pointing out your own righteousness is not "turning the other cheek and letting it go" you passive aggressive mother-fucking liar, but if by "turning the other cheek" you mean demonstrating what an ass you are, I would have to agree with that. Big Grin

I forgive you for calling me a mother fucking liar and an ass.

I don't forgive you for being one,

....and I don't forgive you for being a self-righteous fool, who, instead of commenting on the subject, attempts to turn the attention to himself, and his persecution complex.

I do have a question for you, Blowme.
Do you get a hard-on when you think about what a martyr you are for Jebus ?
I think you must.
Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-08-2015, 05:17 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
That was fascinating Mathilda. Thanks so much for sharing. Thumbsup

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
14-08-2015, 07:20 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(14-08-2015 04:34 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  "Looks like a language" or "works like a language" may mean using the term "language" is an easy metaphor, but it doesn't mean IS a language. To be a language, it has to be a means of communicating not just information, but meaning. DNA does the latter, but not the former. It is simply a self-replicating molecule, nothing more. No one would call the "glider gun" program a "language" in the sense you are using it, but it works rather like DNA, copying itself endlessly by its basic structure.

[Image: 29477.gif]

YOur lack of understanding of basic principles and mechanisms in molecular biology and distortion of the facts is compensated by your amazing ability of personal attacks. Laugh out load

http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

The language of DNA is digital, but not binary. Where binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with (2 - hence the 'bi'nary), DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A.

Whereas a digital byte is mostly 8 binary digits, a DNA 'byte' (called a 'codon') has three digits. Because each digit can have 4 values instead of 2, an DNA codon has 64 possible values, compared to a binary byte which has 256.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/1...etic-code/

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - Father of Cybernetics

"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day."

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-at.../dna-code/

1. Code is defined as communication between an encoder (a “writer” or “speaker”) and a decoder (a “reader” or “listener”) using agreed upon symbols.
2. DNA's definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's.
3. DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages
4. DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.
5. Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.


https://www.prote.in/en/feed/2012/11/dna...oGXXeLQ7gE

Scientists have been looking to unlock the memory storage potential of DNA strands for a decade now. Over at Harvard it looks like they've finally cracked it with a breakthrough that allows over 700 terabytes of data to be stored on a single gram of DNA. Treating the genetic code much like the binary system traditional computer memory uses, they've successfully replicated the storage capacity of over 14,000 Bluray discs, or 151 kilograms of hard drives on a surface area smaller than the tip of your little finger.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...eral-code/

Wiki agrees that the genetic code is a literal code. The articles on codes linked above uses the genetic code as an example of a type of code and states:

Biological organisms contain genetic material that is used to control their function and development. This is DNA which contains units named genes that can produce proteins through a code (genetic code) in which a series of triplets (codons) of four possible nucleotides are translated into one of twenty possible amino acids. A sequence of codons results in a corresponding sequence of amino acids that form a protein.

Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:

‘… just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.’63

An analogy is written language. Natural objects in forms resembling the English alphabet (circles, straight lines, etc.) abound in nature, but this fact does not help to understand the origin of information (such as that in Shakespeare’s plays). The reason is that this task requires intelligence both to create the information (the play) and then to design and build the machinery required to translate that information into symbols (the written text). What must be explained is the source of the information in the text (the words and ideas), not the existence of circles and straight lines. Likewise, it is not enough to explain the origin of the amino acids, which correspond to the letters. Rather, even if they were produced readily, the source of the information that directs the assembly of the amino acids contained in the genome must be explained.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 07:50 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Ergo am power operator dog protractor immense!!!

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
14-08-2015, 07:51 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(14-08-2015 07:20 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:

‘… just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.’63

What is entirely missing from your thinking is incremental change. You keep making the error of looking at the result of 4,500,000,000 years of evolution and claiming these things couldn't randomly self-assemble.

They couldn't.

They didn't.

They came about over a vast period of time in vastly many small steps.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
14-08-2015, 07:55 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
And like I said, it is not house because there are more Chinese, one must say "it takes more than bricks to make a "Fángzi".

Sheesh.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
14-08-2015, 10:17 AM (This post was last modified: 14-08-2015 10:22 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(14-08-2015 07:20 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(14-08-2015 04:34 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  "Looks like a language" or "works like a language" may mean using the term "language" is an easy metaphor, but it doesn't mean IS a language. To be a language, it has to be a means of communicating not just information, but meaning. DNA does the latter, but not the former. It is simply a self-replicating molecule, nothing more. No one would call the "glider gun" program a "language" in the sense you are using it, but it works rather like DNA, copying itself endlessly by its basic structure.

[Image: 29477.gif]

YOur lack of understanding of basic principles and mechanisms in molecular biology and distortion of the facts is compensated by your amazing ability of personal attacks. Laugh out load

What personal attack? What the fuck are you talking about?!

(14-08-2015 07:20 AM)Godexists Wrote:  http://ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/

The language of DNA is digital, but not binary. Where binary encoding has 0 and 1 to work with (2 - hence the 'bi'nary), DNA has 4 positions, T, C, G and A.

Whereas a digital byte is mostly 8 binary digits, a DNA 'byte' (called a 'codon') has three digits. Because each digit can have 4 values instead of 2, an DNA codon has 64 possible values, compared to a binary byte which has 256.

Again, read what you quoted of me, above (even though I got the former/latter backward, at 5:30 AM)... "language" is a common metaphor for DNA's ability to transmit information, but that does not make it the same as a communications language. Indeed, in computers, the binary language to which you refer must be RE-encoded by a communications protocol in order to do anything with that information (Assembly language is the standard, as far as I am aware--since I'm not a programmer, but have listened to my friends who are--converting from digital into hexadecimal and on into useful languages that can encode meaning for human communications/understanding, such as C++). By misrepresenting the metaphoric use of the term language to imply that the chemical self-copying mechanism of DNA, which lets organisms reproduce and evolve, as some sort of coded meaning as in the non-metaphoric use of language, is dishonest. You should stop.

(14-08-2015 07:20 AM)Godexists Wrote:  http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/1...etic-code/

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

Well, yes, these are the homeotic genes, and are one of the major ways in which rapid changes can occur in DNA. You're on pretty dangerous ground here, bub, even acknowledging that this exists. I suspect it will come back to haunt you in later anti-evolution conversations.

Since I've already addressed the difference between the metaphoric and the literal use of the word "language", I'll refer you to my above reply for this, too.

(14-08-2015 07:20 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - Father of Cybernetics

"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day."

Yay! I knew you couldn't go for a whole reply without doing some quote-mining! You guys are so predictable. Here's the full quote, back in context:

As a final remark, let me point out that a large computing machine, whether in the form of mechanical or electric apparatus or in the form of the brain itself, uses up a considerable amount of power, all of which is wasted and dissipated in heat. The blood leaving the brain is a fraction of a degree warmer than that entering it. No other computing machine approaches the economy of energy of the brain. In a large apparatus like the Eniac or Edvac, the filaments of the tubes consume a quantity of energy which may well be measured in kilowatts, and unless adequate ventilating and cooling apparatus is provided, the system will suffer from what is the mechanical equivalent of pyrexia, until the constants of the machine are radically changed by the heat, and its performance breaks down. Nevertheless, the energy spent per individual operation is almost vanishingly small, and does not even begin to form an adequate measure of the performance of the apparatus. The mechanical brain does not secrete thought 'as the liver does bile,' as the earlier materialists claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.

He's talking about the mechanical efficiency of the human brain as compared to the (gigantic, room-sized) computers of his day. He's stating that all the computer does is process the information submitted to it, by using the matter and energy at its emply in the computer, and that otherwise the information is independent of the machinery. This is, by the way, not true of DNA, where the information is the machinery. Our brains are like computers, but our DNA is not.

In any case, before you quote-mine, please have the decency to check to make sure you're using it in the correct context, and not just trying to "slap" us with the words of "some very smart person who said ___, you stupid atheists". We don't use quotes that way because it's dishonest. If we quote someone, we're showing that they said what we're trying to say better than we could. That's it. There are no appeals to authority held valid here, even if he was saying what you are trying to claim. But he's not, so it just makes you dishonest. Stop it.

(14-08-2015 07:20 AM)Godexists Wrote:  http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-at.../dna-code/

I'm deleting and ignoring this section of text because
A) it has already been addressed with you a number of times, and
B) we have repeatedly warned you not to just cut-paste large blocks of Creationist website text at us in here

If you have an argument to make, make it yourself. Continuing to do the above is disrespectful and useless. We're not going to go drive up traffic on someone's Creationist site, and we're not going to sit here while you machinegun Creationist bullshit at us, and then ignore our efforts when we disassemble it for the 100th time and show it to be bullshit. So make the argument yourself, in your own words, or be ignored. We have Google; we will check.

(14-08-2015 07:20 AM)Godexists Wrote:  https://www.prote.in/en/feed/2012/11/dna...oGXXeLQ7gE

Scientists have been looking to unlock the memory storage potential of DNA strands for a decade now. Over at Harvard it looks like they've finally cracked it with a breakthrough that allows over 700 terabytes of data to be stored on a single gram of DNA. Treating the genetic code much like the binary system traditional computer memory uses, they've successfully replicated the storage capacity of over 14,000 Bluray discs, or 151 kilograms of hard drives on a surface area smaller than the tip of your little finger.

Neat! DNA can also store meaning if we insert meaning into the code. That has absolutely nothing to do with how DNA came to be or how it functions in the real world. It does, however, provide an avenue by which your Creator could have stored actual meaning in the DNA, if this Creator existed; however, what we see is the randomness of mutation and the shaping of Natural Selection at work, not meaning. It was a good opportunity to message us directly, and God blew it. Womp, womp.

(14-08-2015 07:20 AM)Godexists Wrote:  http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...eral-code/

Wiki agrees that the genetic code is a literal code. The articles on codes linked above uses the genetic code as an example of a type of code and states:

Biological organisms contain genetic material that is used to control their function and development. This is DNA which contains units named genes that can produce proteins through a code (genetic code) in which a series of triplets (codons) of four possible nucleotides are translated into one of twenty possible amino acids. A sequence of codons results in a corresponding sequence of amino acids that form a protein.

No one is arguing that DNA is not a code. No one is arguing that "language" is not a useful metaphor for describing how DNA passes information to its copies, but it doesn't change anything I said above. I am sorry you are having so much trouble with the idea that information transmission is not the same thing as meaning-encoded/decoded language.


(14-08-2015 07:20 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:

‘… just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.’63

An analogy is written language. Natural objects in forms resembling the English alphabet (circles, straight lines, etc.) abound in nature, but this fact does not help to understand the origin of information (such as that in Shakespeare’s plays). The reason is that this task requires intelligence both to create the information (the play) and then to design and build the machinery required to translate that information into symbols (the written text). What must be explained is the source of the information in the text (the words and ideas), not the existence of circles and straight lines. Likewise, it is not enough to explain the origin of the amino acids, which correspond to the letters. Rather, even if they were produced readily, the source of the information that directs the assembly of the amino acids contained in the genome must be explained.

Hooray! You FINALLY quoted someone in close to their original context. However, he's not suggesting the same thing you're reading into it. Seriously, go take a look at what he proposed in that book: he thought that other environmental factors influence the way chemistry turns into biology, and is proposing that outside environmental factors were necessary, more than simple chemistry reacting with itself, in order to cause the particular arrangement we call life. He is not suggesting that God reached His Almighty Hand (or, alternately, that the FSM reached His Noodly Appendage) into the primordial soup to shape those blocks you and he mention. However, there has been quite a bit of criticism at Davies' ideas about top-down information flow, as it conflicts with some of the other research done by biochemists. Davies is an astrophysicist, though, and though he did write a little bit on astrobiology (search for life and/or chemical precursors to life in space), he only got involved in biology in a serious way as a result of his diagnosis with prostate cancer, which killed him last year. His one scientific paper on biology, which he co-wrote with the author mentioned by the hundreds of Creationist websites which misrepresented the work he published, specifically was about the expression of a gene which allowed bacteria to use arsenic, and was later refuted by actual biochemists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Davies

A lot of his work in physics was extremely important, but his attempts to dabble in information science and biology late in life were not well-founded. I don't wish to speak ill of the recently-deceased, so I'll leave it at that.

(Edited to include Quote-box, where I forgot to reinsert the code for it.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2015, 12:25 PM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(13-08-2015 10:18 PM)Godexists Wrote:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8335231

The genetic language is a collection of rules and regularities of genetic information coding for genetic texts. It is defined by alphabet, grammar, collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, semantics.

Yes. It is possible to treat the information encoded in DNA as a language. In the same way, you could treat basic mathematics as a language; it meets all the requirements of alphabet, punctuation, semantics, and so forth. DNA itself, however, remains chemistry.

This is the flaw in your thinking. You fail to understand the difference between a descriptor that is useful as a tool for analysis and the thing itself. You attempt to equivocate between the idea of the word "language" being used as shorthand for "something which we can interpret according to a set of rules" and "language" meaning "spoken by an intelligent species".

The two are not equivalent, and the fact that you not only continue to misunderstand this but actively refuse to consider the idea does not help your case.

As I said: do your homework.

(13-08-2015 10:18 PM)Godexists Wrote:  For the ones that deny that DNA carries literally coded information, but argue that its just metaphorically a code
.

The word you are searching for is encoded, which means that it carries information that can be interpreted in an understandable format according to a certain set of rules.

Which it does, because it is chemistry, and we understand chemistry. Rocks carry encoded information. The entire study of geology and archaeology is based on this fact.

The words "code", "encoded", and other similar phrases have very specific meanings. Nowhere do they necessarily imply that intelligence was involved.

(13-08-2015 10:18 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote:To say that DNA cannot have a natural origin just because it is very long and intricate is to betray a complete lack of understanding of chemistry.

Laugh out load

No answer, I see. Wonderful. Glad to see that you've spent so much time actually studying chemistry.

(13-08-2015 10:18 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote:DNA is the same thing, but replacing glider guns with chemicals. No intelligence needed. It's a natural consequence of the way chemicals interact with one another, not anything supernatural. It just requires the right conditions to crop up. The larger the sample size, the more likely that it will appear.

here some basic education for you: <snip>

Was this in any way intended to be an actual response to what I said, or are you just shoveling as much shit as possible and hoping that something sticks?

Never mind. Don't answer that. We all know which one it is.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: