Where's the Evidence??
23-03-2012, 07:52 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2012 08:13 PM by Upright BiPed.)
RE: Where's the Evidence??
Quote:All those things you say are independent aren't so, they're interdependent
The fact that the transfer of information requires an organized multi-part system is not being denied. That does not change the fact that the relationship of the codons to their resulting effects is a non-material relationship, one that is established by a physically isolated object. Those physical dynamics are the same as any other form of recorded information transfer, and they demonstrate that the transfer is semiotic.
Quote:A causes B (the protocol) that causes C, hence we have a causality relation between the pattern and the effect
I might choose slightly different words, but your point is more than clear. The problem is this: A is the codon. B is the aminoacyl synthetase. C is the binding of the proper amino acid to the growing polypeptide chain.
But A does not physically interact with B, and B does not physically interact with C. In order to establish the relationship between A and C, the actions of B are isolated from both A and C - as they must be. This is a lesson we learn from observing any other form of recorded information transfer, and when we look inside the cell, lo and behold, we find exactly the same thing there are well. The amino acid synthetases bind the correct amino acids to the correct tRNA both spatially and temporally isolated from the ribosome, where the input of the codons and the binding of the polypeptides take place. The observations made in the semiotic argument are completely demonstrated by the evidence.
Your comment about interdependence also raises another point which I have yet to mention, but is itself demonstrated as clearly as it could possibly be. It’s an interesting side issue to the main point of the semiotic argument, and it needs neither to be accepted nor denied on order for the semiotic argument to stand validated. That is, a representation is an arrangement of matter which is completely useless without a protocol to decode it (into an effect). I cannot imagine anyone earnestly challenging that statement. On the other hand, a protocol is an arrangement of matter that is completely useless without a representation to decode. These two physical objects – in whatever form the transfer of information may take place – absolutely require the existence of other object in order to function. That would make the information transfer in the genome the most prevalent form of irreducible complexity on the surface of the planet.
Thanks for the conversation Nach. I have no illusions of changing anyone’s mind; I simply wanted to demonstrate that materially valid arguments exist. There are many of them.
Quote: factually incorrect is debatable, due to the gaps,
There are no fundamental gaps in our understanding of the how DNA, DNA polymerase, mRNA, tRNA, amino acids, aminoacyl synthetase, and the ribosome are used during protein synthesis. The rather mild semantic distinction between you saying “transfer” and me saying “translate” does not constitute a gap in our knowledge of the system, yet you posed it as such. To say that “the chain of material events” is not arbitrary is merely an assertion against observable evidence to the contrary. It's also a slight misrepresentation of the argument. The chain of events I described was never represented as being anything other than a material process. Finally, to note that the stop codon binds with a release factor instead of a tRNA (in order to terminate the translation) is nothing more than to acknowledge another integral part of the system (and that acknowledgment does nothing whatsoever to change the observations being made). And the anticodon loop you mention only binds with the mRNA codon, it plays no active role in the binding of the correct amino acid to that tRNA. That binding is established by the aaRS (the only molecules in biology that establish the genetic code).
Quote: This bolded part has me confused (my comprehension skills may be lacking). Observably determined.........m'kay
I apologize for being clumsy. Allow me to clarify… ‘it has been demonstrated by observation that the relationship is set by an object which does not interact with either the codon or its resulting effect’.
Quote: Doesn't interact with them - Begs the question, how can it be determined by them without any interaction from them.
What is being determined is the arbitrary relationship between the codon and its effect within the system (the binding of the correct amino acid to the polypeptide). The aminoacyl synthetase accomplish this be being able to physically recognize the amino acid and the codon; charging the tRNA with the correct amino acid prior to it ever entering the ribosome. That charging process is therefore spatially and temporally isolated from both a) the presentation of a codon in the ribosome, and b) the binding of the correct amino acid to the polypeptide. Here is a short, rather descriptive explanation from the RCSB Protein database:
“When a ribosome pairs a [certain] tRNA with [certain] codon, it expects to find a [certain] amino acid carried by the tRNA. It has no way of checking; each tRNA is matched with its amino acid long before it reaches the ribosome. The match is made by a collection of remarkable enzymes, the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases” (emphasis added)
Quote:I meant invidious in the sense that it is unfair or unjust to negate something like anthropomorphism and then use the same thing in an analogy to support your proposition.
Again, I have no issue with Peirce, and therefore I do not negate his ideas. However, his ideas were generally isolated to human communication. Others (such as Charles Morris) then expanded his concepts to animal communication systems. And in the age of information-driven machinery, we see these same concepts repeated once again. Representations and protocols are not only the single conceivable method to physically record and transfer information, they are the only method we have ever found. This is an observation without contradiction anywhere in the cosmos. And, it is demonstrated in its earliest possible form as the very thing that organizes a living cell. It is hardly anthropocentric to recognize that it did not originate with mankind. That recognition is an act to remove anthropomorphisms from the equation altogether – and appropriately so. The only thing being observed is the material itself.
Thank you for the conversation. Your response looks a little like the responses I’ve had when becoming familiar with the physics of the matter. I get the feeling that your position boils down to “what are you talking about, where’s the issue?”.
I will attempt to spell it out. Again, thanks.
HOUSE OF CANTOR,
Quote:I see a relationship between geometry and abiogenesis.
I understand you see a relationship between abiogenesis and geometry. That is why I asked you to explain it, so that we can determine if it has any impact of the observations being made.
You began your post with three questions that demanded a level of proof that no theory - of any kind - will ever be able to provide. It was an act to insulate yourself.
To willfully ignore material evidence is one thing (and a very poor thing at that). To do so by demanding the physically impossible – is simply irrational.
|Messages In This Thread|
RE: Where's the Evidence?? - Denicio - 22-03-2012, 11:25 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence?? - Denicio - 23-03-2012, 07:48 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence?? - Upright BiPed - 23-03-2012 07:52 PM
RE: Where's the Evidence?? - Denicio - 26-03-2012, 08:14 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence?? - Denicio - 27-03-2012, 07:39 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence?? - Denicio - 29-03-2012, 11:33 AM
RE: Where's the Evidence?? - Denicio - 30-03-2012, 07:51 AM