Another prediction fulfilled!

[rogue06]

Yup. This time it's the fallacy of false authority.

Anyone for bingo?

Roy

Got my card

[rwatts]

It's so much fun being proven right - again!

During an exchange that I was having with an Atheist just over two decades ago, I made a (not-so-bold) prediction having to do with "degenerate" codons. Basing myself solely on what I knew of Information Theory combined with my Biblical Christian belief that 'God always has a purpose', I predicted that (paraphrasing), "one day we will discover that there is an important purpose for multiple codons specifying the same amino acid". [By the way, during that time I had made another prediction regarding "junk" DNA (then highly exciting "evidence" for Evolutionists) based on the same two reasons that I gave above - but that's another topic].

Well, the 'prediction fulfilled' day has formally arrived.

Here's the article reporting it: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08...fun089301.html

Here's the paper on which the article is based: Front. Genet., 20 May 2014 | doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00140

Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing

David J. D'Onofrio1,2* and David L. Abel3

1Control Systems Modeling and Simulation, General Dynamics, Sterling Heights, MI, USA
2Department of Humanities and Science, Math Department, College of Humanities and Science, University of Phoenix, Detroit, MI, USA
3Department of ProtoBioCybernetics/ProtoBioSemiotics, The Gene Emergence Project of The Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc., Greenbelt, MD, USA


This is also related to a paper* that I co-authored in the 2011 Symposium "Biological Information: New Perspectives" - that too would be another topic.

*Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutations, Montanez, Marks, Fernandez and Sanford, 2011.

The upshot of D'Onofrio's and Abel's paper is that, "Redundancy of the codon to amino acid mapping, therefore, is anything but superfluous or degenerate." In simple language and using an example, while GGU, GGC, GGA, and GGG all encode the amino acid glycine, we now know that each particular codon for glycine is critical in determining translation rates, protein folding and ultimate function.

Just as predicted - each codon version does have important function.

We live in exciting times. In light of an avalanche of scientific discoveries, retaining the Materialistic Evolutionary Paradigm is becoming harder with each passing day. Of course, as I know all too well, no amount of evidence will ever sway the Materialistic Evo-Faithful. Hey, after all, it's what they believe and live by! They'll go down with the ship before conceding a single point - the Holy Foot must not ever be allowed in the door. As for the Theistic Evolutionists, they have bigger, more serious problems than the Atheists.

Jorge

Creation science really has nothing going for it Jorge.

It's little more than an anti-biology, anti-geology, anti-astronomy grumble-fest, which mostly uses illogic and silly arguments to buttress its discontents.

Here is some real stuff for you to feast on:-

Replaying evolutionary transitions from the dental fossil record

From dinosaurs to birds: a tail of evolution


No grumbling and moaning here. Just ideas actually being tested by scientists.

[sparc]

It's so much fun being proven right - again!

During an exchange that I was having with an Atheist just over two decades ago, I made a (not-so-bold) prediction having to do with "degenerate" codons. Basing myself solely on what I knew of Information Theory combined with my Biblical Christian belief that 'God always has a purpose', I predicted that (paraphrasing), "one day we will discover that there is an important purpose for multiple codons specifying the same amino acid". [By the way, during that time I had made another prediction regarding "junk" DNA (then highly exciting "evidence" for Evolutionists) based on the same two reasons that I gave above - but that's another topic].

Well, the 'prediction fulfilled' day has formally arrived.

Here's the article reporting it: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08...fun089301.html

Here's the paper on which the article is based: Front. Genet., 20 May 2014 | doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00140

Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing

David J. D'Onofrio1,2* and David L. Abel3

1Control Systems Modeling and Simulation, General Dynamics, Sterling Heights, MI, USA
2Department of Humanities and Science, Math Department, College of Humanities and Science, University of Phoenix, Detroit, MI, USA
3Department of ProtoBioCybernetics/ProtoBioSemiotics, The Gene Emergence Project of The Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc., Greenbelt, MD, USA


This is also related to a paper* that I co-authored in the 2011 Symposium "Biological Information: New Perspectives" - that too would be another topic.

*Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutations, Montanez, Marks, Fernandez and Sanford, 2011.

The upshot of D'Onofrio's and Abel's paper is that, "Redundancy of the codon to amino acid mapping, therefore, is anything but superfluous or degenerate." In simple language and using an example, while GGU, GGC, GGA, and GGG all encode the amino acid glycine, we now know that each particular codon for glycine is critical in determining translation rates, protein folding and ultimate function.

Just as predicted - each codon version does have important function.

We live in exciting times. In light of an avalanche of scientific discoveries, retaining the Materialistic Evolutionary Paradigm is becoming harder with each passing day. Of course, as I know all too well, no amount of evidence will ever sway the Materialistic Evo-Faithful. Hey, after all, it's what they believe and live by! They'll go down with the ship before conceding a single point - the Holy Foot must not ever be allowed in the door. As for the Theistic Evolutionists, they have bigger, more serious problems than the Atheists.

Jorge

Abel's and D'Onofrio's work is new and correct. Unfortunately, what is new is not correct and what they get right is not new.
It may fit to your own unsubstantiated claims of multiple codes and the procedure to get it published may be familiar to you but collecting data from the literture, writing a kind of review, filling in ones own unjustifiable ideas without indicating where conclusions corroborated by data end and where your personal wild speculations not based on data begin is just not science.
BTW, a relatively good indicator for pseudo-science you may want to apply is the frequency of self citations. Sounds familiar? That's why I left the following comment elsewhere before:

I had the chance to read the online version of the chapter "Biological Information — What is It?" by Werner Gitt, Robert Compton and Jorge Fernandez. It seems to be a short version of their book "Without Excuse" which is also availble at Amazon.com. They refer to their book 17 times while the other 13 reference together are mentioned 18 times. Unfortunately, "in Biological Information — What is It?" the authors kept quiet about the main conclusion they draw in their book namely (cited from the Amazon blurb of "Without Excuse"):

"With his co-authors, information scientist Dr Werner Gitt provides the most rigorous and useful definition of information thus far. He distinguishes this Universal Information (real information) from things often mistakenly called information, and shows how ultimately all biological information comes from God."

[rwatts]

.


Then - hear this - later they will say: "Jorge never talks science."

Well you don't. You cannot even discuss a philosophy of science with any sense.

You do such a lousy job with mainstream science, and so I would love to see you begin to present us with some creation science. It cannot get any worse.