Posted: 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?