BBC: Secret of life discovery turns 50

[Sauron]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2804545.stm

'Secret of life' discovery turns 50

By Ivan Noble
BBC News Online science staff

Watson and Crick's model is now in the Science Museum in London

Fifty years ago, on 28 February 1953, Francis Crick walked into the Eagle pub in Cambridge, UK, and announced something for which he would later share a Nobel Prize.
"We have found the secret of life," his collaborator and subsequent fellow Nobel laureate James Watson later quoted him as saying.

The pair really had figured out something very close to that.

Working out the famous double helix structure of DNA was an achievement which led to countless advances and solved a mystery which had troubled scientists for decades.

[Socrates]

Exactly right. The March issue of Creation magazine (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/) has just come out, and it has a detailed article about the design of DNA, in honor of the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the double helix structure.

Some of the points:
DNA is the most compact information storage and retrieval system in the universe.
The information content the DNA in each cell nucleus would be enough to fill 3 or 4 sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
The instructions for the decoding machinery are itself coded on the DNA, a vicious circle for chemical evolution.
The translation code, or something very like it, is optimal, as is the choice of letters.
Not all organisms have exactly the same code, a problem for common ancestry ideas.
There are many uses being discovered for so-called junk DNA, including good evidence that introns have a role as part of an advanced operating system.

[Sauron]

03-02-2003 @ 06:58 AM
Socrates:

The translation code, or something very like it, is optimal, as is the choice of letters.


How was this determined?



Not all organisms have exactly the same code, a problem for common ancestry ideas.



Not really. If all organisms had exactly the same code, then all organisms would be the same species. Are you sure you aren't being a little sloppy with the description here?



There are many uses being discovered for so-called junk DNA, including good evidence that introns have a role as part of an advanced operating system.


What evidence is this?

[Socrates]

--------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
The translation code, or something very like it, is optimal, as is the choice of letters.

--------------------------------------------------------
Sauron:
How was this determined?By its ability to protect against error — see J. Knight, Top Translator, New Scientist p. 15, 18 April 1988.

--------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Not all organisms have exactly the same code, a problem for common ancestry ideas.

--------------------------------------------------------
Sauron:
Not really. If all organisms had exactly the same code, then all organisms would be the same species. Are you sure you aren't being a little sloppy with the description here?What an ignoramus. Most organisms with the same code (i.e. clearly in the context of translation code from DNA to proteins) cannot interbreed. I didn't say "coded message", and that can't even be reasonably inferred from the context.

--------------------------------------------------------

Socrates:
There are many uses being discovered for so-called junk DNA, including good evidence that introns have a role as part of an advanced operating system.

--------------------------------------------------------
Sauron:
What evidence is this?Read the flippin' article. It has plenty of documentation. If you aren't aware of ANY uses for alleged "junk" DNA, you're in no position to be debating on this.

[Sauron]

03-02-2003 @ 06:27 PM
Socrates:
The translation code, or something very like it, is optimal, as is the choice of letters.
Sauron:
How was this determined?[/list]By its ability to protect against error — see J. Knight, Top Translator, [i]New Scientist p. 15, 18 April 1988.


You'll have to summarize the argument - if you can.



Socrates:
Not all organisms have exactly the same code, a problem for common ancestry ideas.

Sauron:
Not really. If all organisms had exactly the same code, then all organisms would be the same species. Are you sure you aren't being a little sloppy with the description here?

What an ignoramus.


Temper, temper, Soc. You simply screwed up - all I did was point it out. Don't shoot the messenger. :rofl:




Most organisms with the same code (i.e. clearly in the context of translation code from DNA to proteins) cannot interbreed.


You're going to have to define "translation code from DNA to proteins" better than you have so far, Soc, before you can claim any "context".




I didn't say "coded message", and that can't even be reasonably inferred from the context.


Wrong. The only context you provided was that "not all organisms have the same code", and then you tried to claim that it was a problem for common descent.

1. You failed to define the code you're talking about, and

2. you've also *utterly* failed to show why there's a problem for common descent.




Socrates:
There are many uses being discovered for so-called junk DNA, including good evidence that introns have a role as part of an advanced operating system.

Sauron:
What evidence is this?

Read the flippin' article. It has plenty of documentation.


In the first place, you gave no link to any article. Your link only goes to the magazine webpage. Sloppy again.

In the second place, you can't even view the article online. After digging around the cartoonish website for awhile, I discovered what everyone should have realized: you can't even view the articles from teh current edition online. They probably don't even post them, until they're already a few months old and the issue is no longer for sale. So before you tell someone to "read the flippin' article", how about making sure the article is even there, in the first place?

Thirdly, if you can't summarize the information in this article, you probably shouldn't be making claims about what it says.



If you aren't aware of ANY uses for alleged "junk" DNA, you're in no position to be debating on this.

Tsk, tsk, Socrates. As a creationist, you're in no position to be debating science - yet I still tolerate you. :rofl:

Anyhow, I am fully aware of introns - and the fact that they are evidence in FAVOR of evolution, and not against it.

But, child, the SPECIFIC claim that I wanted you to substantiate was that "that introns have a role as part of an advanced operating system". Can you substantiate that, are are you just hot air and bluster?

[Socrates]

------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
The translation code, or something very like it, is optimal, as is the choice of letters.
Sauron:
How was this determined?

Soc:
By its ability to protect against error — see J. Knight, Top Translator, New Scientist p. 15, 18 April 1988.
------------------------------------------------------------
You'll have to summarize the argument - if you can.You'll have to read the reference, if you can, because I won't spoonfeed an arrogant ignoramus. Even the title should be enough to back me up, so let's see you disprove it.

------------------------------------------------------------

Socrates:
Not all organisms have exactly the same code, a problem for common ancestry ideas.

Sauron:
Not really. If all organisms had exactly the same code, then all organisms would be the same species. Are you sure you aren't being a little sloppy with the description here?

Soc: What an ignoramus.

------------------------------------------------------------

Temper, temper, Soc. You simply screwed up - all I did was point it out. Don't shoot the messenger. All I did was point out how you can't read in context. Don't shoot the messenger.

------------------------------------------------------------
Soc
Most organisms with the same code (i.e. clearly in the context of translation code from DNA to proteins) cannot interbreed.

------------------------------------------------------------
Sauron
You're going to have to define "translation code from DNA to proteins" better than you have so far, Soc, before you can claim any "context".Read an elementary biochemistry textbook!


------------------------------------------------------------
Soc.
I didn't say "coded message", and that can't even be reasonably inferred from the context.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sau.
Wrong. The only context you provided was that "not all organisms have the same code", and then you tried to claim that it was a problem for common descent.

1. You failed to define the code you're talking about, and
Because except for someone with the reading comprehension skills of an Alzheimeric Australopithecine, it was obviously the genetic code that relates DNA sequence to amino acid sequence.

2. you've also *utterly* failed to show why there's a problem for common descent.Evolving from one code to another would be like switching the keys on a typewriter—the messages would be scrambled. :bonk:

------------------------------------------------------------

Socrates:
There are many uses being discovered for so-called junk DNA, including good evidence that introns have a role as part of an advanced operating system.

Sauron:
What evidence is this?

Read the flippin' article. It has plenty of documentation.

------------------------------------------------------------
In the first place, you gave no link to any article. Your link only goes to the magazine webpage. Sloppy again. I intended to link to the mag webpage, because the article is in the latest mag, and not AFAIK on the website.

In the second place, you can't even view the article online. After digging around the cartoonish website for awhile, I discovered what everyone should have realized: you can't even view the articles from teh current edition online. They probably don't even post them, until they're already a few months old and the issue is no longer for sale. So before you tell someone to "read the flippin' article", how about making sure the article is even there, in the first place? :doh:Because the magazine is available, and inexpensive.

Thirdly, if you can't summarize the information in this article, you probably shouldn't be making claims about what it says.I gave a summary already. You'd whinge until I rewrote the whole article for you!

------------------------------------------------------------

If you aren't aware of ANY uses for alleged "junk" DNA, you're in no position to be debating on this.
------------------------------------------------------------

Tsk, tsk, Socrates. As a creationist, you're in no position to be debating science - yet I still tolerate you. As someone who believes the good-to-you-via-the-zoo evolutionary absurdity, you're in no position to be debating science :rant:- yet I still tolerate you. But my statement still stands.

Anyhow, I am fully aware of introns - and the fact that they are evidence in FAVOR of evolution, and not against it. Rubbish. The elaborate design of the spliceosome should smack you in the gob that there must be SOME reason for introns. And I know that the AiG site DOES have info about spliceosomes.

But, child, the SPECIFIC claim that I wanted you to substantiate was that "that introns have a role as part of an advanced operating system". Can you substantiate that, are are you just hot air and bluster?But, tot :dufus: the list is expanding all the time. Maybe you should try something not so advanced, such as M. Cooper, Life 2.0, New Scientist pp. 30–33, 8 June 2002.

[Sauron]

03-03-2003 @ 04:16 AM

Socrates:
The translation code, or something very like it, is optimal, as is the choice of letters.
Sauron:
How was this determined?

Soc:
By its ability to protect against error — see J. Knight, Top Translator, [i]New Scientist p. 15, 18 April 1988.
------------------------------------------------------------
You'll have to summarize the argument - if you can.[/list]You'll have to read the reference, if you can, because I won't spoonfeed an arrogant ignoramus. Even the title should be enough to back me up, so let's see you disprove it.


Translation: you don't have the article, and you've never read it for yourself. You're simply borrowing the quotation from a footnote on somebody ELSE's webpage. So you really don't have a *clue* what it says.

And no, small one, the title alone doesn't back anyone up. Sheesh. :rofl:

[Sauron]

03-03-2003 @ 04:16 AM
Sauron:
Not really. If all organisms had exactly the same code, then all organisms would be the same species. Are you sure you aren't being a little sloppy with the description here?

Soc: What an ignoramus.

------------------------------------------------------------

Temper, temper, Soc. You simply screwed up - all I did was point it out. Don't shoot the messenger. [/list]All I did was point out how you can't read in [i]context. Don't shoot the messenger.


But I can read in context. You simply failed to provide any. Your fault, not mine.

[Sauron]

[i]03-03-2003 @ 04:16 AM
Soc
Most organisms with the same code (i.e. clearly in the context of translation code from DNA to proteins) cannot interbreed.

Sauron
You're going to have to define "translation code from DNA to proteins" better than you have so far, Soc, before you can claim any "context".[/list]Read an elementary biochemistry textbook!


Translation: another claim you can't back up.

[Socrates]

I provided a source, so the onus is on the Lizard Being to try to disprove it (and yes I HAVE read the article :tongue:). And as it clearly doesn't understand the concept of the Genetic Code, it should go back to school and study rather than spamming TW.