Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Can anyone explain how the moth got it's owl eyes?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ophiolite" data-source="post: 77661031" data-attributes="member: 234799"><p>No. There are no symbols in DNA. There are no signs in DNA. There are chemical groupings that, for convenience, we have assigned letters, A for Adenine, T for Thymine, G for Guanine, and C for Cytosine. They exist as letters only the minds and writing and speech of humans. In the DNA they are chemicals.</p><p></p><p>Chemicals have the potential to react with each other and it happens that DNA, when present in a cell, engages in a variety of chemical reactions, which lead to the production of a variety of proteins. Chemistry. But since it takes place in living organisms we call it biochemistry. Plenty of letters and signs and symbols in books explaining that biochemistry. None at all in the chemistry itself.</p><p></p><p>I think it unforunate that calling the pattern present in the grouping of the four bases in DNA a code has led to confusion for some. As I said, equivocation rears its ugly head. The definitions you gave do not fit the meaning of "code" as used by biologists and biochemists. You know, the people who understand the concept because they don't just study it, many of them have contributed to that understanding.</p><p></p><p>Its ironic that you seek to deny the nature of evolution and its biochemical roots by misusing a term introduced by the very people who have demonstrated the mechanisms of evolution.</p><p></p><p>Now, perhaps you'll address my earlier point. Given that you appear to accept that transcription creates changes in messenger RNA which leads to the production of a protein, how is it that you can deny uesful protiens are generated by mutations in the DNA. There is a breakdown in you logic stream somewhere. I am curious as to where it is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ophiolite, post: 77661031, member: 234799"] No. There are no symbols in DNA. There are no signs in DNA. There are chemical groupings that, for convenience, we have assigned letters, A for Adenine, T for Thymine, G for Guanine, and C for Cytosine. They exist as letters only the minds and writing and speech of humans. In the DNA they are chemicals. Chemicals have the potential to react with each other and it happens that DNA, when present in a cell, engages in a variety of chemical reactions, which lead to the production of a variety of proteins. Chemistry. But since it takes place in living organisms we call it biochemistry. Plenty of letters and signs and symbols in books explaining that biochemistry. None at all in the chemistry itself. I think it unforunate that calling the pattern present in the grouping of the four bases in DNA a code has led to confusion for some. As I said, equivocation rears its ugly head. The definitions you gave do not fit the meaning of "code" as used by biologists and biochemists. You know, the people who understand the concept because they don't just study it, many of them have contributed to that understanding. Its ironic that you seek to deny the nature of evolution and its biochemical roots by misusing a term introduced by the very people who have demonstrated the mechanisms of evolution. Now, perhaps you'll address my earlier point. Given that you appear to accept that transcription creates changes in messenger RNA which leads to the production of a protein, how is it that you can deny uesful protiens are generated by mutations in the DNA. There is a breakdown in you logic stream somewhere. I am curious as to where it is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Can anyone explain how the moth got it's owl eyes?
Top
Bottom