Steve001 Wrote:I read all your posts the first time and I read them again just now. You didn't answer this question regardless of what you think. "What really chaps your arse about ToE?" You see the question I'm actually asking is, What philosophy or ideology creates this normative state of mind in you that apparently ToE cannot occur by entirely natural means?
Looking over what you've written I see you've not answered this question either.
You didn't answer this question either http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-da...7#pid11507
No steve, this is your game and your problem, not mine. You asked me what issues I had with your version of evolution and I gave a cursory review of the issues I have with it, and didn't list any ideological reasons because the issues I have don't have to do with ideology. That you think there can be no possible other answer is further indicative of your completely walled in bias with absolutely no room to move any direction. In fact, I would love to ask you the same question: what "normative state of mind" (what an absolutely absurd phrase for this situation) makes you think it absolutely must be via purely random chance? The fact that you can't fathom how someone could come to a conclusion distinct from your own without some unwavering bias or ideology that blocks all evidence inconsistent with that view is probably the reason that you don't have any substantive discussions with people on this thread or elsewhere. You're only interested in "outing" what you assume must be people's biases because it just couldn't be that they'd disagree with you for actual substantive reasons, right? Even when they understand the material and evidence as well as (or far better than) you.
To come back and rephrase your question entirely, which doesn't naturally follow from what you posted, and then try to tell me I didn't answer your question, is insincere. Of course I can't read your mind so maybe next time consider saying what you actually mean and you'll get a different answer.
(2017-12-05, 12:39 AM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]Hence the reason no computer architect assigns all the codes! ;-)
You have to read the literature on this. There is a lot of thought given to ways in which a 1-base code could evolve into a 2-base code, and so forth. In particular, if early life employed fewer amino acids, the trick is to keep binding the original amino acids while opening up the binding of new ones. Remember, we have all of chemistry at our disposal.
Check out the wobble hypothesis:
https://teaching.ncl.ac.uk/bms/wiki/inde...Hypothesis
Another line of evidence is that the tRNA's anticodon loop and its amino acid acceptor appear to have evolved separately. So the anticodon could evolve independently of the associated amino acid.
Another interesting paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4810241/
~~ Paul
Paul, before we delve into all that, can you explain what you mean by
evolve in a world where we don't yet have any genes? I just don't know what you mean, unless you mean that things might pop up through random chemistry.
There is a place in J Scott Turner's book (which I hope you are going to read) in which he discusses the problems faced by pre-life. He points out that sheer diffusion is against all this hypothetical pre-life chemistry. If some wonderful new chemical forms accidentally in such an environment, it will simply diffuse away because there are no cell boundaries.
Perhaps you should give us some sort of speculative ordering for all these stages:
1) Cells without active transport across their membranes.
2) Cells with active transport across their membranes.
3) A chemical that reproduces itself.
4) The formation of some sort of genetic code.
5) The capacity to evolve by natural selection.
Without a clear ordering, it is all too easy to assume a process such as evolution that can't exist at that stage in the bootstrap process.
Quote:Hence the reason no computer architect assigns all the codes! ;-
Yes I know, but I didn't want the analogy to expand to the size of a computer architecture manual
The point is that those few unassigned codes then get used as prefix codes for longer instructions - so the codes end up with irregular lengths. DNA is beautifully regular - 3 bases (or six bits if you like) per codon.
David
(2017-12-04, 06:19 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]Wait a minute. We are talking about the evolution of the genetic code, not the evolution of proteins. The question is whether the genetic code could evolve by naturalistic means.
And how can you say this with a straight face when the alternate proposal is that some sort of intelligence did it, with no hypotheses about how it works and with no evidence of it? It is, right now, nothing but an inference from human design.
There is no genetic code table in the cell. The table was invented by humans to help explain what is going in with the chemistry. The periodic table is also a nice table to explain what is going on with valence electrons in atoms. What exactly is the difference? I'm willing to listen to a difference, but so far everyone is just accusing me of being an uncooperative curmudgeon.
~~ Paul
The evolution of a protein is a physical transformation. You would measure the transformation in terms of changes to the elements, changes to the folding and changes in active bonding sites.
The evolution of a code is not a physical thing. It is an informational thingy. You would measure the transformation in terms of changes to the symbolic structures, to the sequence of activity, to the logic of the functionality being encoded and in changes to new potential molecules that would attach or be repulsed.
In my worldview both the information structured by the periodic table and a table mapping bio-semiotic information are information objects that can be actualized by a physical pattern and sequence of development.
One has been expertly constructed to match atomic properties and particle interaction states. The mentality that did the information processing was from the natural capability of living things.
The code was constructed on bio-feedback from trial and error and is structured by successful adaptation. A limited mentality that did the information processing was from the natural capability of living things.
The periodic table is an add-on. DNA/RNA/Ribosome communication tables are inclusive in the organism. Other than that the are similar. Paul you are still looking for the magic, when mind and sense of self - (human or any other living thing) are natural things. Living things are intelligent and have designed themselves.
(2017-12-05, 03:15 AM)Dante Wrote: [ -> ]No steve, this is your game and your problem, not mine. You asked me what issues I had with your version of evolution and I gave a cursory review of the issues I have with it, and didn't list any ideological reasons because the issues I have don't have to do with ideology. That you think there can be no possible other answer is further indicative of your completely walled in bias with absolutely no room to move any direction. In fact, I would love to ask you the same question: what "normative state of mind" (what an absolutely absurd phrase for this situation) makes you think it absolutely must be via purely random chance? The fact that you can't fathom how someone could come to a conclusion distinct from your own without some unwavering bias or ideology that blocks all evidence inconsistent with that view is probably the reason that you don't have any substantive discussions with people on this thread or elsewhere. You're only interested in "outing" what you assume must be people's biases because it just couldn't be that they'd disagree with you for actual substantive reasons, right? Even when they understand the material and evidence as well as (or far better than) you.
To come back and rephrase your question entirely, which doesn't naturally follow from what you posted, and then try to tell me I didn't answer your question, is insincere. Of course I can't read your mind so maybe next time consider saying what you actually mean and you'll get a different answer.
Oh, I do fathom how someone chooses to see design irrespective of what the evidence indicates. I suspect that's why you choose to be sympathetic to that position if not outright supportive.
As I said earlier, in this country I cotton no talk of design because those that squeak most loudly asserting there is design are too willing to insert their Christian God into all areas of public life undermining the liberties our Constitution grants us citizens. To think they are simply questioning the science of evolution is absurdly naive.
The web is a marvelous thing for it allows the dissemination of worthwhile ideas to spread worldwide. It also has a dark side by allowing the people with bad ideas to find each other.
DaveB Wrote:Paul, before we delve into all that, can you explain what you mean by evolve in a world where we don't yet have any genes? I just don't know what you mean, unless you mean that things might pop up through random chemistry.
RNA is a perfectly good carrier of genes, though not as good as DNA. Here's a good paper on the issues with the origin of the RNA world:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3331698/
Quote:There is a place in J Scott Turner's book (which I hope you are going to read) in which he discusses the problems faced by pre-life. He points out that sheer diffusion is against all this hypothetical pre-life chemistry. If some wonderful new chemical forms accidentally in such an environment, it will simply diffuse away because there are no cell boundaries.
I'll check it out, though I am not hopeful.
https://www.openlettersmonthly.com/book-...se-desire/
https://smile.amazon.com/Purpose-Desire-...geNumber=2
Quote:Perhaps you should give us some sort of speculative ordering for all these stages:
I will leave this up to the many biologists, some of whose papers I have linked. The project is ongoing and will be for some time.
Quote:Yes I know, but I didn't want the analogy to expand to the size of a computer architecture manual The point is that those few unassigned codes then get used as prefix codes for longer instructions - so the codes end up with irregular lengths. DNA is beautifully regular - 3 bases (or six bits if you like) per codon.
I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Many architectures have fixed-size opcodes. The IBM 1130 and DEC VAX come to mind. Also, in the case of the genetic code, there are exceptions, so that the same codon results in different amino acids.
~~ Paul
stephenw Wrote:The evolution of a code is not a physical thing. It is an informational thingy. You would measure the transformation in terms of changes to the symbolic structures, to the sequence of activity, to the logic of the functionality being encoded and in changes to new potential molecules that would attach or be repulsed.
The evolution of the genetic code is most certainly a physical thing. If you believe it is not, could you point to the "information mechanism" that drove its evolution?
Quote:The periodic table is an add-on. DNA/RNA/Ribosome communication tables are inclusive in the organism. Other than that the are similar. Paul you are still looking for the magic, when mind and sense of self - (human or any other living thing) are natural things. Living things are intelligent and have designed themselves.
The periodic table is no more an add-on to valence electron chemistry than the code table is an add-on to biology.
~~ Paul
(2017-12-05, 01:51 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]As I said earlier, in this country I cotton no talk of design because those that squeak most loudly asserting there is design are too willing to insert their Christian God into all areas of public life undermining the liberties our Constitution grants us citizens. To think they are simply questioning the science of evolution is absurdly naive.
That's a pretty lofty function you've given yourself.
Its also comical (in a sad sort of way), naïve, arrogant, and I would argue for this community: misplaced.
Yes, there are those here who likely hope there is 'something' beyond materialism behind the proverbial scenes. Call it God if you wish. I am certainly one of those and realize that it creates some bias in how I choose to interpret what I see and read.
However, you aren't fighting religious dogma on these boards. Seems you could save posts like what I highlighted above for the fundamentalist sites you must frequent to fulfill your crusading responsibilities. Why not grant a bit of leeway since as Dante aptly pointed out: you yourself are sounding awfully dogmatic about things you can not prove.
(2017-12-05, 02:50 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]I will leave this up to the many biologists, some of whose papers I have linked. The project is ongoing and will be for some time.
To me this is vital, because you are evoking ideas such as evolution at a point where you don't have any genes - I don't care if those are carried on RNA or DNA, but if the code is in the process of being established, it can't also provide the mechanism of evolution!
Quote:I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Many architectures have fixed-size opcodes. The IBM 1130 and DEC VAX come to mind. Also, in the case of the genetic code, there are exceptions, so that the same codon results in different amino acids.
~~ Paul
Well fixed size opcodes simply fill up all the possibilities as time goes on - they can't evolve much. Variable sized opcodes offer much more scope for expansion (the PC is the obvious example), but we are really discussing DNA here, and DNA has fixed size codons.
Did you mean one codon giving rise to two amino acids, or the other way round - there are certainly some amino acids that are coded in more than one way, but I can't quite see how the other way would work at all!. All of which is irrelevant to the question of how the genetic code came into being!!!!!
David
(2017-12-05, 01:51 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]As I said earlier, in this country I cotton no talk of design because those that squeak most loudly asserting there is design are too willing to insert their Christian God into all areas of public life undermining the liberties our Constitution grants us citizens. To think they are simply questioning the science of evolution is absurdly naive.
You seem to be awfully keen to talk about (your?) Christian God, when nobody else here is doing so - are you sure you don't have a dog collar on?
David