Weak, as usual. You never do come up with the goods, mostly cause it's all crap. Just waffly words, many of which are simply false scientifically, by any standard.
I have framed my only point multiple ways. Your hairsplitting is nothing but your usual tactics of deflection away from having to support your statements that you regurgitate as fact, when the actual evidence clearly contradicts. Stop pretending and refrain from making claims you can't support.
In conclusion Steve001 sweeping and far reaching statement, based on a paradgm shifting non darawinian form of hereditary inheritance. That is far more complex than most can conceive is well just ludicrous in the extreme. I have noticed a lot of scientism from you guys. But when it comes to science you fail.
The stereochemical theory: tantalizing hints but no conclusive evidence
Extensive early experimentation has detected, at best, weak and relatively non-specific interactions between amino acids and their cognate triplets (
5,
73,
74). Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to argue that even a relatively weak, moderately selective affinity between codons (anticodons) and the cognate amino acids could have been sufficient to precipitate the emergence of the primordial code that subsequently evolved into the modern code in which the
specificity is maintained by much more precise and elaborate, indirect mechanisms involving tRNAs and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases.
As I have been saying the code is mediated through the enzymes coded in information, recognition is physical as the controls have become substantiated into matter from non physical digital information, one specific synthetase to each amino acid! They perform high fidelity proof reading the chemical reaction is the charging or disolving of the bond based on choice contingency in the recognition factor. The controls that operate the recognition and choice are physical but defined by information.
Furthermore, it can be argued that interaction between amino acids and triplets are strong enough for detection only within the context of specific RNA structures that ensure the proper conformation of the triplet; this could be the cause of the failure of straightforward experiments with trinucleotides or the corresponding polynucleotides.
Specific structure ensures confirmation or as I said ealier recognition. Structure defined by information not chemistry.
There are yet more variations on the theme... still more failure.
On the whole, it appears that the aptamer experiments, although suggestive,
fail to clinch the case for the stereochemical theory of the code. As noticed above, the affinities are rather weak, so that even the conclusions on their reality hinge on the adopted statistical models. Even more disturbing, for different amino acids, the aptamers show enrichment for either codon or anticodon sequence or even for both (
75), a lack of coherence that is
hard to reconcile with these interactions being the physical basis of the code.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/
I have already posted two links confirming there is no direct chemical connection between codon and amino acid. It is well accepted.
The rules of the code are not physical laws as in constraints but formal controls manifest into matter.
It is interesting to note, a codon within a gene does not by itself produce the final protein. It does have individual formal meaning instantiated into its physical sequence. A gene or microRNA functions as a physical symbol vehicle syntax representing a string of choices [
24]. As such, the linear digital sequence of codons is a form of PI [
23,
24]. Each codon transmits meaningful information which upon translation, can be equivocated to an arbitrary "letter" (in protein space) [
12,
40]. However, as a single letter it does not contain the equivalent meaning found in the language context of a word [
24,
39].
Once the rules or mappings are instantiated into physicality, then the physical codon sequence could potentially become a physical cause. Physicodynamic determinism is not the only kind of determinism. Choice-Contingent Causation and Control (CCCC) [
19]) is also a valid form of determinism that can get instantiated into physicality.
But, as we shall see, the process of translation is still not physicodynamically determined. Only formal algorithmic processing can bring about the process of translation within ribosomes.
There is no known physicodynamic cause for the codon to tRNA translation scheme. Since all genes can be modeled using rules (be they grammar or logical) rather than physicodynamic determinism, we inductively assert that the operation and organization of the genome operate under the influence of a programming language. The genome can be considered as a collective ensemble of instructions and data. Portions of the DNA sequences are algorithmic instantiations. This is evidenced for example, by pre-initiation, enhancer and promoter regions, lincRNA's, siRNA's and a host of other instructive sequences, that collectively instruct direct functionality such as gene regulation. In addition to the instruction constructs, the genome is also composed of data in the form of codons. This results in mature mRNAs that are handled as data by other processors (ribosome) which are executing their own algorithms. In other words there are "multiple programming languages" in the cell.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319427/
I think I have made my point. You can misunderstand, deflect and perform all your linguistic acrobatics but it will never have any meat. It is extremely clear you are biased by your own ideology. I don't see how any one could say otherwise. I am done.
Histone code explains intelligence, too funny.
