Posted: Apr 16, 2012 4:11 am
asyncritus wrote:Sir Karl Popper:
"What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code.
But, as Monod points out the machinery by which the cell (at least the nonprimitive cell which is the only one we know) translates the code `consists of a least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA' (Monod, 1970; 1971, 143).
Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the genetic code."
Hmm. Seems we have a problem Houston.
designed - by natural selection. Is this a joke of some kind?Already dealt with. Translation is done by RNA ribozymes(the Ribosome), by reading an RNA template (mRNA).
Guess you didn't pay any attention to this:
But, as Monod points out the machinery by which the cell (at least the nonprimitive cell which is the only one we know) translates the code `consists of a least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA' (Monod, 1970; 1971, 143).
You make it sound so idiotically simple. Yet both Monod and Popper disagree with you. How do you account for that disagreement?Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the genetic code."That means translation of the code could evolve in an RNA world without the need for large complicated proteins.
Monod says 'at least fifty macromolecular components'. Whether he meant proteins or not, it unclear.
But the probability of 50 macromolecular components, being there at the right time, with all the other cellular machinery required, is prettly small, wouldn't you say? I would say impossible.
But rumraket wants a calculation of specified complexity. Can you provide a calculation of the probability of the process you wishfully describe so airily?
I recognise nonsense when I see it. Tough luck.
You're not the first creationist to throw quotemines from 1975 at me. You really should try and catch up with the science, though, because you're 37 years behind, at least.
And don't even get me started on your "warm little pond" nonsense. When's that quote from, exactly...? 1859 ?
