There are a lot of great resources available on the internet for countering Code Denialism. I’ve gathered a few of them for your convenience. I envision a multi-part series on this topic because the evidence against Code Denialism is so extensive and Code Denialism seems to be surging in popularity here at TSZ.
The 1961 paper by Crick et al. is an outstanding example of the use of thought and logic to solve basic biological problems. In my opinion, it is a superb paper to assign to students in courses because it illustrates how combining knowledge and wisdom can provide answers to important scientific questions.
They demonstrated that three bases of DNA code for one amino acid in the genetic code. The experiment elucidated the nature of gene expression and frame-shift mutations.
…the mutant strains could be made functional again by using proflavin to insert or delete a total of three nucleotides. This proved that the genetic code uses a codon of three DNA bases that corresponds to an amino acid.
“This concept of a phase shift, or a ‘frameshift’ [in the genetic code of an rII gene] as we later called it, was so foreign to people in genetics that we had endless problems trying to explain this work.”
Seems like they still have work to do.
The famous paper:
THERE is now a mass of indirect evidence which suggests that the amino-acid sequence along the polypeptids chain of a protein is determined by the sequence of the bases along some particular part of the nucleic acid of the genetic material. Since there are twenty common amino-acids found throughout Nature, but only four common bases, it has often been surmised that the sequence of the four bases is in some way a code for the sequence of the amino-acids. In this article we report genetic experiments which, together with the work of others, suggest that
the genetic code is of the following general type:(a) A group of three bases (or, less likely, a multiple of three bases) codes one amino-acid.
(b) The code is not of the overlapping type.
(c) The sequence of the bases is read from a fixed starting point. This determines how the long sequences of bases are to be correctly read off as triplets. There are no special `commas’ to show how to select the right triplets. If the starting point is displaced by one base, then the reading into triplets is displaced, and thus becomes incorrect.
(d) The code is probably `degenerate’; that is, in general, one particular ammo-acid can be coded by one of several triplets of bases.
Is the Code Degenerate?
… the code is probably `degenerate’, that is, in general more than one triplet codes for each amino-acid. It is well known that if this were so, one could also account for the major dilemma of the coding problem, namely, that while the bese composition of the DNA can be very different in different micro-organisms, the amino-acid composition of their proteins only changes by a moderate amount.
The Nobel Lecture:
I shall discuss here the present state of a related problem in information transfer in living material – that of the genetic code – which has long interested me, and on which my colleagues and I, among many others, have recently been doing some experimental work.
…It is convenient to have a word for a set of bases which codes one amino acid and I shall use the word “codon” for this.
…There is nothing in the backbone of the nucleic acid, which is perfectly regular, to show us how to group the bases into codons. If, for example, all the codons are triplets, then in addition to the correct reading of the message, there are two incorrect readings which we shall obtain if we do not start the grouping into sets of three at the right place.
In spite of the uncertainty of much of the experimental data there are certain codes which have been suggested in the past which we can now reject with some degree of confidence.
Message, messenger, or genetic message appears 12 times. Other codes were proposed and rejected.
The genetic code is a code.
The evidence against Code Denialism is overwhelming.
There’s really nothing to discuss. But if you insist…
That seems to be the position of the advance guys I’ve talked to also. It’s like you’re all in on this. Your way or the highway.
But I’m not sure this particular God WAS infinite. Could be one of those run of the mill Gods you were talking about. Couldn’t tell from the credentials–shined so brightly I couldn’t quite read them.
To be fair, imaginary sky fairies do not wear jackboots and did not create anything.
People who like bossing other people around seem inordinately fond of authority.
I include politicians in that. All sides.
If it is a made up imaginary god, can we make do with a made up imaginary surrender?
FIFY
What separates the Christian God from all the others is not the affections and admiration of his followers. Everyone loves and admires their god. In fact that is one quick way to know what your own personal deity is.
quote:
Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your god.
end quote:
Martin Luther
peace
Good proposal. It turns out I’m better at that anyway.
Where your treasure is.
Not exactly new to Luther.
I hate the fallacy of the appeal to authority.
God.*
Glen Davidson
*Irony noted
No, I don’t. Could you clarify?
OMagain,
I think he meant that the suggestion Christians generally believe that God is a bearded guy (with or without an American flag draped around his handsome frame) is kind of a stereotype–if not a slur.
My own sense (which may also be a slur?) is that Christians, like pretty much everybody else, don’t have a terribly clear sense of what properties the entity they’re praying to has.
It doesn’t really pay to look at that kind of stuff too closely, if you want to stay religious, I don’t think.
Abrahamic religions are made of spiritual Spandex.
There are so many things wrong with your statement I don’t know where to begin.
Off the very top of my head
1) The creation of Adam is not remotely the same thing as the origin of life or the genetic code
2) God is not a man with a beard.
I could go on but I hope you get the point
peace
Not attractive on most people?
Glen Davidson
Thinking deeply about the attributes of God is one of my favorite things.The more I contemplate who he is the more I’m driven to worship, I hope to spend eternity understanding them better
quote:
An unknown God can neither be trusted, served nor worshipped
end Quote: Arthur Pink
Check it out
http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/3913/7643/2884/aogo.pdf
and
https://books.google.com/books?id=NtZJAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=attributes+of+god&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAmoVChMIrJut_JDmyAIVgTEmCh1doA-t#v=onepage&q=attributes%20of%20god&f=false
here is a short list of articles on some of the different attributes
http://www.monergism.com/topics/god%E2%80%99s-attributes
Have fun.
peace
Oh? So who’s the Man With a Beard in Michelangelo’s murals, then? An imposter?
What makes you, some random chat-man on the internet, a better source of information about god’s appearance than Michelangelo, genius artist for the ages?
Why should we believe a single word you say when you clearly know nothing about your own god whatsoever?
A clear violation of the second commandment.
hotshoe_,
Phoodoo will pray for you.
OMagain,
Perhaps “Park your priors at the door” needs to be more prominently displayed in the header.
Taliban!
It’s not substantially different though is it?
God wanted it to be. It was.
Jesus was a man. He had a beard. 2000 years in that beard must be getting long. And grey. Case closed.
One of my own faves, Samuel Butler, wrote a nice little book called God the Known and God the Unknown
Just started on it, am already impressed and intrigued thanks
peace