Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
So, what you are essentially saying is that the accumulation of "information" is something that occurs specifically with the arrangement / insertion / elimination of nucleotides? If that is true, then essentially information is primarily a chemical matter, which seems in my mind to go a long way in debunking creationists' counter arguments.
|
Sort of, but there's a lot more to it than just the DNA sequence. There's enzymes (proteins that catalyze reactions) that replicate the DNA; enzymes that transcribe the DNA to RNA which an enzyme then translates to amino acids, which are sometimes then folded, refolded, and altered by other enzymes.
"Accumulation of information" in your example can also occur through transfer of DNA through multiple different sources. Bacteria, for example, "mate" DNA in several different ways from individual to individual, strain to strain, and species to species. Oncoviruses (retroviruses that can cause cancer) can sometimes "kidnap" some of your host DNA when they're replicating and reinsert it when they infect the next cell or victim.
There's millions of different ways for "information" (DNA) to be accumulated in nature. We exploit it every single day where I work.
The enzyme that replicates DNA in humans has an error rate of approximately 1 nucleotide every 10^12; our genome is about 10^6. It is pretty reliable and accurate; however things happen all the time that cause it to change, like what Ashartus works on - mutagens in the environment are everywhere. UV light is one of the easiest to identify - and we get exposed to it all the time.
The enzyme that replicates RNA (the genomic material) in viruses like polio, respiratory syncytial virus, SARS, has an error rate that introduces one error per replication per genome; HIV is about one per 10 genomes - so if you can imagine a high-pressure situation like antivirals would bottleneck the virus so that only beneficial mutations will survive, then it's easy to see how organisms can evolve quickly. Project that same idea to a larger species with a slower replication time, and over a far larger length of time, and it's not hard to see how evolution produces changes over time.
The thing that ID proponents can't imagine is the enormous length of time that evolution takes and how long we have had to evolve. But arguing with ID proponents is like arguing with a brick wall. You get about the same level of intelligent arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Scientists themselves will refer to "genetic code" or "instructions" or whatever, even textbooks probably use that kind of language, so yeah they make their own bed in a way.
|
It is a "code". I don't see what the issue is. Three nucleotides = one amino acid (or not, depending on the codon). It's invariant, except in some circumstances where organisms have evolved to either misread, or miscode, or "interpret" the codon differently. If ID people are going to try to use that for their arguments, by all means, go ahead. They don't know what they're talking about anyway, so I don't care.
I have a chart sitting 2 feet from me right now that has the "genetic code" on it. I use it every day!