Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#121  Postby Polanyi » Sep 01, 2010 8:45 pm

"In the light of the current theory of evolution, the codelike structure of DNA must be assumed to have come about by a sequence of chance variations established by natural selection. But this evolutionary aspect is irrelevant here; whatever may be the origin of a DNA configuration, it can function as a code only if its order is not due to the forces of potential energy. It must be as physically indeterminate as the sequence of words is on a printed page. As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule."

http://www.compilerpress.ca/Competitive ... 201968.htm

Did anyone follow what Polanyi is saying here?

He is saying your evolutionary scenarios you can dream up is irrelevant when you are trying to explain the origin of the digital information in DNA, why? Because you are assuming self-organization explains the origin of information necessary for the first replicating system, when Polanyi is explaining, that self-organization is precisely the very thing that cannot explain the origin of the information in DNA for reasons given in the passages above this one.

Polanyi concludes in his paper:

"Mechanisms[machines], whether man-made[mechanical] or morphological[biological], are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of inanimate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases[information] in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry[physicality]."

Clearly Michael Polanyi [even though he was not a creationist] was no friend of Darwinian evolution, in fact, Polanyi is criticized by other scientists and philosophers because his critique of evolution.

Here is an abstract of one paper:

Abstract. Michael Polanyi criticized the neo-Darwinian synthesis on two grounds: that accidental hereditary changes bringing adaptive advantages cannot account for the rise of discontinuous new species, and that a Ideological[teleological] ordering principle is needed to explain evolutionary advance.I commend the previous articles by John Apczynski and Richard Gelwick and also argue, more strongly than they, that Polanyi's critique of evolutionary theory is flawed.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

Oh and since we are on Yockey, he was actually an abiogenesis critic, which is strange since he was himself an evolutionist , he conveniently accepted that the origin of life was unprovable scientifically, because material explanations didn't have much success. Nonetheless, he admitted:

"Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted … . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened."

[11] Yockey, H.P., A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, J. Theor. Biol. 67:377–398, 1977; quotes from pp. 379, 396
Last edited by Polanyi on Sep 01, 2010 9:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If Intelligent Design is a belief, it is the belief that we should be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads..
Polanyi
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Johan
Posts: 405
Age: 36
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#122  Postby Polanyi » Sep 01, 2010 8:52 pm

In another revealing passage, Michael Polanyi writes:

"The recognition of certain basic impossibilities has laid the foundations of some major principles of physics and chemistry; similarly, recognition of the impossibility of understanding living things in terms of physics and chemistry, far from setting limits to our understanding of life, will guide it in the right direction. And even if the demonstration of this impossibility should prove of no great advantage in the pursuit of discovery, such a demonstration would help to draw a truer image of life and man than that given us by the present basic concepts of biology."[1]

Or my favorite:

"I differ ... most from biologists[evolutionists], by holding that no mechanism-be it a machine or a machine-like feature of an organism-can be represented in terms of physics and chemistry."[2]

References:

[1] Life's irreducible structure Michael Polanyi, science

[2]'Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry' (Chemical and Engineering News, August 21, 1967.)
Last edited by Polanyi on Sep 01, 2010 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If Intelligent Design is a belief, it is the belief that we should be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads..
Polanyi
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Johan
Posts: 405
Age: 36
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#123  Postby hackenslash » Sep 01, 2010 8:55 pm

You still haven't demonstrated that you have any understanding of information, and how it does and does not apply to DNA. Any chance of you actually addressing that, along with all the other things you've studiously avoided, or are you just going to continue with the argumentum as nauseum?
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21231
Age: 49
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#124  Postby Polanyi » Sep 01, 2010 9:00 pm

The information in the DNA molecule [the meaningful arrangement of nucleotides that code for function] is irreducible to the chemistry of the DNA molecule, just like the meaningful arrangement of letters on a printed page is irreducible to the chemistry of the printed page. There is nothing in the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule or it's bases that determines how they are arranged, and it's only because the molecule can protect it's sequences from the effects of self-organizing physio chemical forces that allows it to preserve the information content. This is why we would say the digital information in the DNA molecule is irreducible to the physicality of the molecule. Also the information is non-physical, yes, the symbols are material, but the symbols is not the information, it's their specific arrangement that records the information.
If Intelligent Design is a belief, it is the belief that we should be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads..
Polanyi
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Johan
Posts: 405
Age: 36
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#125  Postby Polanyi » Sep 01, 2010 9:03 pm

@Calilasseia

I will respond when I get back tomorrow, working early shift so I should have a little time at work, it's late here, only had time to make a quick post.

Cheers.
If Intelligent Design is a belief, it is the belief that we should be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads..
Polanyi
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Johan
Posts: 405
Age: 36
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#126  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 01, 2010 10:26 pm

Going to provide a substantive response instead of your usual worthless copy-paste quote mines and apologetic excrement?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 21578
Age: 56
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#127  Postby tytalus » Sep 01, 2010 10:27 pm

Seems like a typical distraction from the quotemines to start arguing over which side Polanyi favored, a fight I see Johan has engaged in many times before if the google results for Facebook pages are any indication.

Interesting, though, that he seems to want to go on arguing about Yockey's work from 30-40 years ago. It's as if he expects no new research or publication may have countered that criticism. :)
Futurama wrote: Bender: Dying sucks butt. How do you living beings cope with mortality?
Leela: Violent outbursts.
Amy: General slutiness.
Fry: Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.
User avatar
tytalus
 
Posts: 1228
Age: 46
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#128  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 01, 2010 11:17 pm

Oh dear, not this excrement again ...

Polanyi wrote:The information in the DNA molecule [the meaningful arrangement of nucleotides that code for function] is irreducible to the chemistry of the DNA molecule


Bollocks. It's a direct consequence of the chemistry of the molecule. As you would know if you had ever paid attention in a real science class instead of wasting time with worthless apologetic excrement. Oh, and since I have thirteen scientific papers establishing that the genetic code is itself an evolvable entity, none of which you have ever bothered to even acknowledge the existence of in your usual dishonest fashion, your pseudo-argument is null and void.

Polanyi wrote:just like the meaningful arrangement of letters on a printed page is irreducible to the chemistry of the printed page.


It's fatuous and wrong supernaturalist analogy time again!

What part of "the chemistry of the DNA molecule, coupled with the interaction (yet more chemical reactions) with the ribosomes, determine what protein is coded for" don't you understand? Scientists have known this for decades.

Polanyi wrote:There is nothing in the chemical makeup of the DNA molecule or it's bases that determines how they are arranged


You obviously never bothered studying any actual chemistry, did you?

Polanyi wrote:and it's only because the molecule can protect it's sequences from the effects of self-organizing physio chemical forces that allows it to preserve the information content.


Fatuous waffle. What part of "the arrangement of nucleotides IS the information" don't you understand?

Polanyi wrote:This is why we would say the digital information in the DNA molecule is irreducible to the physicality of the molecule.


And as usual, this is fatuous, asinine apologetic bollocks that bears no relation to REALITY. Go and learn some REAL SCIENCE instead of wasting time with gazing at the apologetic lint in your own metaphysical navel.

Polanyi wrote:Also the information is non-physical


Bollocks. What part of "information is nothing more than the observational data extant with respect to the state of a system" do you still not understand, despite me telling you this repeatedly?

Polanyi wrote:yes, the symbols are material, but the symbols is not the information, it's their specific arrangement that records the information.


And since their arrangement is a physical entity, namely position in space, you're talking bollocks again.

Going to learn some real science someday, Polanyi, instead of wasting time with apologetic excrement and a masturbation fantasy of a doctrine?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 21578
Age: 56
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#129  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Sep 02, 2010 12:57 am

Besides, the mystery of the apparent "saltation" of species in the fossil record has been largely solved. Very "minor" changes in gene regulatory networks can lead to profound changes in morphology. Thus the arrival of chordates and arthropods is a lot less mysterious than it once was. In essence, a chordate is an upsidedown arthropod [and vice-versa]. [Most probably an inversion event in part of the Hox sequencing]. So the four dimensional geography of embryos is determined by the order of expression in Hox genes and their "friends". Even sponges have Hox, so we can conclude that these regulatory networks were present in organisms prior to the bilateria. This understanding can be cryptic for some, because we don't have access as Dawkins might say, to "the genetic book of the dead".

At it's simplest, gemomic [and hence phenotypic] innovation is a process of gene [or gene cluster] duplication followed by "loss-of-function" or "gain of function". "Sophistications" like two genes sharing [subfunctionalisation] a function or trait naturally follow from this. Though there is philosophical debate about what actually constitutes a true innovation, the basic mechanisms involved are becoming elucidated.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 63

Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#130  Postby Launion » Sep 02, 2010 1:00 am

On another forum for christian weirdos I posed the question of the composition Jesus' DNA , seeing he had only one biological parent .

Boy did I get some good replies
Failure is never a fatal and success is never a final.-- then Heaven help us - said the parachutist to the BASE jumper-
groucho says "I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBERr "
User avatar
Launion
 
Name: simon bert
Posts: 307

Country: philippines
Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#131  Postby orpheus » Sep 02, 2010 1:45 am

Polanyi wrote:Can anybody explain to me what Dawkins means, when he says:"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"[1] ?

Why does Dawkins think these things look designed? I know he doesn't think they really are designed, he's a darwinist, he thinks they evolved. But why think they even look designed?


His point is this: the creationists say these things look designed. He's simply responding to their claim, and explaining how these things came about via evolution by natural selection.
Let's try for peace in 2018, shall we?
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7270
Age: 53
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#132  Postby orpheus » Sep 02, 2010 1:57 am

thirsting wrote:
Polanyi wrote: I want to know why he even thinks anything looks designed, and so far, no one has given me a satisfactory answer. Most people describe to me what Dawkins did, others say Dawkins makes an aesthetic judgement. This is like saying Dawkins is seeing faces in the DNA strands.



He's likely mentioning things appearing designed because he is addressing what creationists are claiming. If no one was claiming things are designed, there would be no need to counter that point.

As simple as that. Seems so very obvious, to me at least.


Ah, I see that thirsting made this point before I did (and more clearly, too). My apologies.

:oops:
Let's try for peace in 2018, shall we?
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7270
Age: 53
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#133  Postby orpheus » Sep 02, 2010 1:58 am

Beatrice wrote:
Polanyi wrote:
In any case, why don't you actually ask Dawkins? I don't have a telepathic connection to his brain.


Are you saying, you don't know why Dawkins thinks these things look designed? That I would have to ask Dawkins himself?

I'm gonna waste my time, prominent evolutionists never respond to my emails when I ask them questions... :(


Alternatively you could read The Blind Watchmaker :coffee:


Oh, now that's just crazy talk!
Let's try for peace in 2018, shall we?
User avatar
orpheus
 
Posts: 7270
Age: 53
Male

Country: New York, USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#134  Postby Polanyi » Sep 02, 2010 6:11 am

Bollocks. It's a direct consequence of the chemistry of the molecule.


No the base sequence is chemically indeterminate, this is the only reason the molecule can preserve information, Polanyi explains this very clearly in his paper.

Polanyi writes: "Suppose that the actual structure of a DNA molecule were due to the fact that the bindings of its bases were much stronger than the bindings would be for any other distribution of bases,..such a DNA molecule would have no information content. Its code-like character would be effaced by an overwhelming redundancy. . . .Whatever may be the origin of a DNA configuration, it can function as a code only if its order is not due to the forces of potential energy. It must be as physically indeterminate as the sequence of words is on a printed page."

It's fatuous and wrong supernaturalist analogy time again


Sigh, this is not an analogy.

Yockey explains:"It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical."[2]

What part of "the chemistry of the DNA molecule, coupled with the interaction (yet more chemical reactions) with the ribosomes, determine what protein is coded for" don't you understand? Scientists have known this for decades.


Of course the information in DNA specifies the arrangements of amino acids which determine the proteins, but none of this means that the base sequence itself is determined by the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. Which was my point.

And since their arrangement is a physical entity, namely position in space, you're talking bollocks again.


Even materialists like Yockey would tell you that information is non-material, Yockey admits: "Even many scientists do not understand the distinctions between DNA, which is material, and the genome and the genetic code, which are non-material"

References:

[1] Polanyi, M. (1968) "Life's irreducible structure". Science: 160: 1308-1312.

[2]Hubert P. Yockey, 1981. "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," J. Theoret. Biol. 91, 13. Quote on p. 16.
If Intelligent Design is a belief, it is the belief that we should be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads..
Polanyi
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Johan
Posts: 405
Age: 36
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#135  Postby Shrunk » Sep 02, 2010 10:34 am

Polanyi wrote:
Bollocks. It's a direct consequence of the chemistry of the molecule.


No the base sequence is chemically indeterminate, this is the only reason the molecule can preserve information, Polanyi explains this very clearly in his paper.

Polanyi writes: "Suppose that the actual structure of a DNA molecule were due to the fact that the bindings of its bases were much stronger than the bindings would be for any other distribution of bases,..such a DNA molecule would have no information content. Its code-like character would be effaced by an overwhelming redundancy. . . .Whatever may be the origin of a DNA configuration, it can function as a code only if its order is not due to the forces of potential energy. It must be as physically indeterminate as the sequence of words is on a printed page."


And I've already addressed this point above. Do try to keep up:

Shrunk wrote: You keep repeating these quotes as if they mean something. In fact, they are trivially obvious. The base sequences are, of course, not related to the chemical structure of DNA. If they were, then evolution would be an impossibility.

The base sequences are determined by the interplay of heredity, mutations, natural selection and genetic drift. The "information" contained in a genome reflects the results of that interplay as it is manifested in a particular individual, or in a population of organisms.


IOW, the "chemical indeterminancy" of the DNA molecule is not a problem for evolutionary theory; on the contrary, it is what allows evolution to occur.

You've also continued to ignore this question:

Shrunk wrote: Tell me, Polanyi: if you were to find an exact replica of the Matterhorn on another planet, would you conclude one of them had been "designed"? If so, how would you determine it had been designed if you only knew one of them existed?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26157
Age: 53
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#136  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 02, 2010 10:45 am

Oh look, it's more apologetic excrement ...

Polanyi wrote:
Bollocks. It's a direct consequence of the chemistry of the molecule.


No the base sequence is chemically indeterminate


The world's chemists are laughing at you. What part of "DNA is an organic molecule, and chemical reactions determine which nucleotides are attached to the backbone" do you not understand? Which leads me to ask as a corollary, "why don't you go and learn some real science instead of pissing around with worthless apologetic excrement?"

Polanyi wrote:this is the only reason the molecule can preserve information


Bollocks. The reason the molecule preserves information is because it is a sufficiently stable chemical system that can exist in a number of well defined states.Once again, go and learn some real science, and stop pissing about with worthless apologetic excrement.

Polanyi wrote:Polanyi explains this very clearly in his paper.


I don't give a fuck what your hero states in whatever paper you're using for duplicitous apologetic purposes, what I care about is what real science tells me, and real science tells me that DNA is a chemical molecule that is capable of existing in a large number of states. The current state that a given DNA molecule exists in at any given time defines its information content. Going to learn this elementary concept sometime, are you?

Oh, and Michael Polanyi wasn't a chemist or a molecular biologist. He was a mathematician. His knowledge of chemistry and molecular biology was limited. Plus, Michael Polanyi has been dead for over three decades, and in that time, chemists and molecular biologists have alighted upon experimental results that falsify his presuppositions about biology. When are you going to learn this elementary fact?

Polanyi wrote:Polanyi writes:


Who fucking cares what your hero writes? When are you going to learn that chemists and molecular biologists have alighted upon experimental results that FALSIFY his presuppositions about biology?

Polanyi wrote:"Suppose that the actual structure of a DNA molecule were due to the fact that the bindings of its bases were much stronger than the bindings would be for any other distribution of bases,..such a DNA molecule would have no information content.


Which is a fatuous strawman canard. Once again, it is because DNA can exist in a number of well defined states that it acts as an information carrier. But those states are the result of chemical reactions. There is NO magic hand manipulating this molecule. Learn this elementary lesson.

Polanyi wrote: Its code-like character would be effaced by an overwhelming redundancy. . . .


Guess what? There IS redundancy in the genetic code. As you would have found out, if you had bothered to learn some real science instead of pissing about with worthless apologetic excrement.

Polanyi wrote:Whatever may be the origin of a DNA configuration, it can function as a code only if its order is not due to the forces of potential energy.


Total and utter bollocks, and a blatant demonstration on the part of your hero of his ignorance of chemistry. What part of "all chemical reactions are determined by whether or not they are energetically favoured" do you not understand? Chemists have known this for the best part of two centuries.

Polanyi wrote: It must be as physically indeterminate as the sequence of words is on a printed page."


Bollocks. And once again, the analogy fails, because, wait for it, spatial position is a physically determined property of matter. Within, of course, the limits imposed by quantum entanglement.

Polanyi wrote:
It's fatuous and wrong supernaturalist analogy time again


Sigh, this is not an analogy.


Yes it is, and it's a crap one to boot. Once again, what part of "spatial position is a physically determined property of matter" do you not understand?

Polanyi wrote:Yockey explains:


Yockey's obsolescent horseshit has been falsified time and again by subsequent developments in real science. When are you going to learn this elementary lesson?

Polanyi wrote:"It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical."[2]


And the reason that we can apply an identical mathematical treatment to the two is because, once again, spatial position is a physically determined property of matter. Yawn.

Polanyi wrote:
What part of "the chemistry of the DNA molecule, coupled with the interaction (yet more chemical reactions) with the ribosomes, determine what protein is coded for" don't you understand? Scientists have known this for decades.


Of course the information in DNA specifies the arrangements of amino acids which determine the proteins, but none of this means that the base sequence itself is determined by the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. Which was my point.


Once again, what part of "chemical reactions determine the formation of DNA molecules" don't you understand? This is elementary knowledge.

Polanyi wrote:
And since their arrangement is a physical entity, namely position in space, you're talking bollocks again.


Even materialists like Yockey would tell you that information is non-material


Bollocks. What part of "the physical state of a system of interest defines its information content" do you not understand? Every development in computer science from Turing onwards is predicated upon this.

Polanyi wrote:Yockey admits: "Even many scientists do not understand the distinctions between DNA, which is material, and the genome and the genetic code, which are non-material"


Yawn. The genome IS a material entity. It's nothing more than a collection of DNA molecules in a particular state. The genetic code is merely a set of physical (in this case, chemical) interactions that facilitates the production of a given sequence of amino acids, based upon the sequence of nucleotides. There's no fucking magic needed.

Oh, and are you going to bother acknowledging the existence of the thousands of scientific papers in the relevant fields that falsify your presuppositions sometime, or are you going to continue dishonestly pretending that they don't exist, whilst robotically parroting your apologetic excrement over and over again in typically tiresome creationist fashion?
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 21578
Age: 56
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#137  Postby Rumraket » Sep 02, 2010 1:05 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
Polanyi wrote:
Bollocks. It's a direct consequence of the chemistry of the molecule.

No the base sequence is chemically indeterminate

The world's chemists are laughing at you. What part of "DNA is an organic molecule, and chemical reactions determine which nucleotides are attached to the backbone" do you not understand? Which leads me to ask as a corollary, "why don't you go and learn some real science instead of pissing around with worthless apologetic excrement?"

It gets worse than this. Apparently Johan is unaware that the Ribosome and Polymerase molecular structures have been determined and that we now understand how these molecules physically and chemically "read" the base-sequences of the DNA. That when they do the "reading" of the DNA molecule, their own structure is manipulated by the DNA molecule in such a way as to allow them to only accept, in the case of the Polymerase, the relevant complementary nucleotide-triphosphate from the surrounding cytoplasm, and in the case of the Ribosome, an additional ribosomal subunit carrying the complementary(to the read nucleotide triplet) amino-acid into place. Everything about this system is entirely a physical and chemical process and I challenge Polanyi to describe a step in it that "defies materialism" without simply providing blind assertions or random quotes from long-dead mathematicians.

Obviously, the specific sequence of bases in any given gene is the result of an evolutionary history that got selected, and in some cases simply carried along at a later time. We cannot know with any degree of certainty exactly how any given A, C, G or T in this gene was manipulated into position. But we do understand the underlying mechanisms that produce genes and mutations on them. These can be anything from radioactive decay(ionizing radioation) to physical disturbances(like heat and pressure) or chemical pollutants/imbalances. Some bacteria even have their own rate-of-mutation-increasing defense mechanisms that they employ under special stressful conditions in order for surviving descendants to have a higher chance of living on with beneficial mutations in the new environment.

Johan can blindly assert(and quote Michael Polanyi) all the way to his grave that the sequence of bases in the DNA is irreducible to physical and chemical forces. He'd be wrong though.
Luscious and blue cloaked in clouds the Earth spins it's way through a universe of dimensions and splendour utterly beyond comprehension.
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12847
Age: 37

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#138  Postby Shrunk » Sep 02, 2010 1:28 pm

I hope no one reading this gets the impression that Calilasseia and I are contradicting each other on the issue of whether the DNA molecule is "chemically indeterminate." A reasonably close reading of our posts will demonstrate that we are really saying the same thing. (Though one of us with considerably less depth and erudition). ;)
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26157
Age: 53
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#139  Postby Polanyi » Sep 02, 2010 4:38 pm

Calilasseia

No the base sequence is chemically indeterminate[/quote]

The world's chemists are laughing at you.

And the world's scientists laughed at Galileo too, it's irrelevant. Science is not a consensus, what matters is Polanyi's arguments, Polanyi is either right or wrong, but that people laugh at Polanyi wouldn't prove anything.

What part of "DNA is an organic molecule, and chemical reactions determine which nucleotides are attached to the backbone" do you not understand?//


The DNA molecule is not just an ordinary chemical molecule it's an informational molecule BIG difference, sure if you really want, you can break it down to the chemical level, but we can break a printed page down too to it's chemical level if we really wanted to, so what? Would this mean the letters on a printed page is chemically determinate? Of course not.

Bollocks. The reason the molecule preserves information is because it is a sufficiently stable chemical system that can exist in a number of well defined states.


You are wrong, Stephen Meyer explains:

"There are bonds, for example, between the sugar and the phosphate molecules that form the two twisting backbones of the DNA molecule. There are bonds fixing individual nucleotide bases to the sugar-phosphate backbones on each side of the molecule. There are also hydrogen bonds stretching horizontally across the molecule between nucleotide bases making so-called complementary pairs. These bonds, which hold two complementary copies of the DNA message text together, make replication of the genetic instructions possible. Most importantly, however, notice that there are no chemical bonds between the nucleotide bases that run along the spine of the helix. Yet it is precisely along this axis of the molecule that the genetic instructions in DNA are encoded. In other words, the chemical constituents that are responsible for the message text in DNA do not interact chemically in any significant way."

Polanyi wrote:Polanyi explains this very clearly in his paper.


Oh, and Michael Polanyi wasn't a chemist or a molecular biologist. He was a mathematician. His knowledge of chemistry and molecular biology was limited. Plus, Michael Polanyi has been dead for over three decades, and in that time, chemists and molecular biologists have alighted upon experimental results that falsify his presuppositions about biology. When are you going to learn this elementary fact?


lol, let's see, During World War I, Michael Polanyi served as a medical officer for the Austro-Hungarian army during World War I. While in the war, Polanyi got sick and during his hospitalization and recovery was actually able to write a paper on the thermodynamics of adsorption. This paper was accepted by the chemistry faculty of Budapest University which awarded him a Ph.D. in chemistry in 1917. Soon after his time at war in 1920, Polanyi was employed at the new Institute of Fibre Chemistry in Berlin, where he established himself as one of Germany's premier physical chemists.

This is from the International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 8, No.2 (2002), pp. 123-127:

"One of the most novel philosophers of sciences in the 20th century was the physical chemist Michael Polanyi."

Michael Polanyi was one of the great figures of European intellectual life in the 20th century. A highly acclaimed physical chemist in the first period of his career who became a celebrated philosopher after World War II, Polanyi taught in Germany, England, and the United States and associated with many of the leading intellects of his time. His biography has remained unwritten partly because his many and scattered interests in a wide variety of fields, including six subfields of physical chemistry, epistemology, economics, patent law, social and political theory, aesthetics, and theology.
http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/genera ... 019517433X

Looks like a chemist if you ask me..

There is NO magic hand manipulating this molecule.


There is no magical hand manipulating letters on a printed page either, but none of this means, we can reduce the information to the chemistry of the page. There is no magical hand that makes my computer aps run, they run by themselves, but this doesn't mean they can explain themselves.

Guess what? There IS redundancy in the genetic code. As you would have found out, if you had bothered to learn some real science instead of pissing about with worthless apologetic excrement.


Of course there exists a small level of redundancy in the DNA molecule, even Polanyi accepted this:

"The information content of DNA is in fact known to be reduced to some extent by redundancy, but I accept here the assumption of Watson and Crick that this redundancy does not prevent DNA from effectively functioning as a code."

What part of "all chemical reactions are determined by whether or not they are energetically favoured" do you not understand? Chemists have known this for the best part of two centuries.


Not only did Polanyi argue for the exact oppsite, but Yockey actually agrees with Polanyi when he writes:

"Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors."

Bollocks. And once again, the analogy fails, because, wait for it, spatial position is a physically determined property of matter. Within, of course, the limits imposed by quantum entanglement.


Again, I am with the pioneer of bioinformatics on this one, IT"S NOT AN ANALOGY, THIS IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND.

References:

Polanyi, M. (1968) "Life's irreducible structure". Science: 160: 1308-1312.

Yockey, H.P. (1977) "A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory". J. Theor. Biol. 67: 377-98.

The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism, Stephen C. Meyer,
Last edited by Polanyi on Sep 02, 2010 4:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If Intelligent Design is a belief, it is the belief that we should be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads..
Polanyi
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Johan
Posts: 405
Age: 36
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Is Dawkins seeing faces in DNA strands?

#140  Postby IIzO » Sep 02, 2010 4:41 pm

The DNA molecule is not a chemical molecule,

:) ...... :ask: ........ :scratch: ...... :what: ..... :exclaim: :exclaim: :exclaim: :exclaim:


The world's chemists are laughing at you.

:thumbup: , so does this layman.
:lol:
Between what i think , what i want to say ,what i believe i say ,what i say , what you want to hear , what you hear ,what you understand...there are lots of possibilities that we might have some problem communicating.But let's try anyway.
Bernard Werber
User avatar
IIzO
 
Posts: 2182

Country: La France , evidement.
France (fr)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest