dvunkannon
Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008
|
| Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 30 2012,10:00) | | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 30 2012,09:36) | | Quote (paragwinn @ Aug. 29 2012,22:31) | Darwinist biochemistry can't teach you what Joe can teach you [UD link]: | Quote | I see that Allan Miller has gone off of the edge- earth to Allan- there isn’t any physio-chemical connection between the nucleotide (codon) and the amino acid it represents- the codon does not become the amino acid via some chemical reaction.
Yes there are chemical connections/ bonds between the nucleotides. Yes there are chemical connections/ bonds between the tRNA and its amino acid. Yes there are chemical connections/ bonds between the amino acids in the polypeptide. And all of that is irrelevant to what I said. |
Thanks, Joe, I was about to fall over the edge myself! |
What Joe is trying to say in his IDiot way is that the code could have been different. UUU could have been leucine instead of phenylalanine. That is irrelevant as to whether the process of transcription is based on merely physics and chemistry. |
So the argument is:
1. We observe mapping A
2. We can imagine other mappings
3. . . .
4. Therefore, Jesus!
Could you help me with step 3? |
Except when the argument is that the code is optimal, therefore Jebus.
And nobody point Joey GeeGee to the work of Yarus' lab that actually found evidence that some codons _are_ directly related to their amino acid.
--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima
|
