Challenge to Creationists/IDers

[konradv]

I've asked this question in several posts, but haven't had anyone address it, so I'm giving it its own thread.

If we were created/designed, why of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? That implies randomness, NOT design. IMO, a designed system would have 3 codons for each AA and two each for 'stop' and 'start'. Agree/disagree?

 

[del]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. "

disagree

 

[Mad Scientist]

Right. Randomness couldn't have been built into the design. That's simply unpossible.

 

[Mr_Rockhead]

I've asked this question in several posts, but haven't had anyone address it, so I'm giving it its own thread.

If we were created/designed, why of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? That implies randomness, NOT design. IMO, a designed system would have 3 codons for each AA and two each for 'stop' and 'start'. Agree/disagree?

I am neither an IDer or Creationist and I’m not even sure what you are talking about but, it seems to me, if a creator designed us, the creator could use any number designs to do it (including those that suggest randomness and including those that don’t make sense to you).

 

[konradv]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. "

disagree

Wouldn't something that's designed BE consistent some way? I don't really see your comment answering my question.

 

[konradv]

Right. Randomness couldn't have been built into the design. That's simply unpossible.

So, God plays with our minds by making things look random? Is that really what you want to base your disagreement on?!?!

 

[del]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. "

disagree

Wouldn't something that's designed BE consistent some way? I don't really see your comment answering my question.

your inability to detect consistency is not proof it doesn't exist.

good luck

 

[konradv]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. "

disagree

Wouldn't something that's designed BE consistent some way? I don't really see your comment answering my question.

your inability to detect consistency is not proof it doesn't exist.

good luck

Who said consistency doesn't exist? Mammals all have the same basic body plan, for example. The question really is, if ID can't explain my conundrum, what do they really have to teach in a classroom setting?

 

[del]

Wouldn't something that's designed BE consistent some way? I don't really see your comment answering my question.

your inability to detect consistency is not proof it doesn't exist.

good luck

Who said consistency doesn't exist? Mammals all have the same basic body plan, for example. The question really is, if ID can't explain my conundrum, what do they really have to teach in a classroom setting?

um, you did in the OP.

remember?



you seem confused.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I've asked this question in several posts, but haven't had anyone address it, so I'm giving it its own thread.

If we were created/designed, why of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? That implies randomness, NOT design. IMO, a designed system would have 3 codons for each AA and two each for 'stop' and 'start'. Agree/disagree?

I have no idea. You could be right or wrong here.

It could have been designed by someone smarter than us or it could have just happened, we can't prove it either way now can we?

 

[konradv]

your inability to detect consistency is not proof it doesn't exist.

good luck

Who said consistency doesn't exist? Mammals all have the same basic body plan, for example. The question really is, if ID can't explain my conundrum, what do they really have to teach in a classroom setting?

um, you did in the OP.

remember?

you seem confused.

You seem to be confused. I gave you one example of an inconsistency that belies the notion of design. I DID NOT say there was no consistency.

 

[konradv]

I've asked this question in several posts, but haven't had anyone address it, so I'm giving it its own thread.

If we were created/designed, why of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? That implies randomness, NOT design. IMO, a designed system would have 3 codons for each AA and two each for 'stop' and 'start'. Agree/disagree?

I have no idea. You could be right or wrong here.

It could have been designed by someone smarter than us or it could have just happened, we can't prove it either way now can we?

True, but IDers want to come into the classroom and try to prove the design side anyway.

 

[xsited1]

I've asked this question in several posts, but haven't had anyone address it, so I'm giving it its own thread.

If we were created/designed, why of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? That implies randomness, NOT design. IMO, a designed system would have 3 codons for each AA and two each for 'stop' and 'start'. Agree/disagree?

Disagree. Humans know very little at this point in time. To even think that we could prove or disprove the existence of God is foolish at best. Unfortunately, our academic institutions are replete with a cadre of evolutionist hell-bent on excoriating anyone who goes against their "religion." It's like the Salem Witch-hunts never ended. Any academic who even breathes the words 'Intelligent Design' will be ostracized in a New York minute, never to teach at a mainstream University again.

 

[del]

Who said consistency doesn't exist? Mammals all have the same basic body plan, for example. The question really is, if ID can't explain my conundrum, what do they really have to teach in a classroom setting?

um, you did in the OP.

remember?

you seem confused.

You seem to be confused. I gave you one example of an inconsistency that belies the notion of design. I DID NOT say there was no consistency.

my mistake. so your point is that your inability to discern consistency in one aspect of the universe means that there is no possibility of some type of design?

rock on

 

[peach174]

I've asked this question in several posts, but haven't had anyone address it, so I'm giving it its own thread.

If we were created/designed, why of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? That implies randomness, NOT design. IMO, a designed system would have 3 codons for each AA and two each for 'stop' and 'start'. Agree/disagree?

How did the amino acids start in the first place?

I believe in Bio genesis that life arises from pre existing life, not from nonliving material.

There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.

That to me is intelligent design.

 

[spectrumc01]

Let me help you guys out here. When dealing with those who believe in something that can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you are dealing with faith. Faith is the belief in something that can't be proven or disproven. So when arguing over faith there is no point or end to the debate. People believe or not based on faith, and there is no ammount of facts or evidence that will ever change their mind.

Then there are those who need facts and evidence to belive something to be true. Since there are none in a faith based arguement they cannot believe in something they can't prove. This is the very nature of faith, and why it is called faith. Faith cannot be proven or disproven.

When it comes to the creation of everything, you are dealing with faith on both sides. One side has probability on it's side as evidence, and the other says just believe, and offers a fantastical story by an unknonwn author as evidence. The real question is where do you want to put your faith? I prefer likelyhood and probability over blind faith. Yet I still might be wrong, and such is the nature of faith.

 

[peach174]

Science has proved over and over again that life can not come from nonliving material.

 

[konradv]

I've asked this question in several posts, but haven't had anyone address it, so I'm giving it its own thread.

If we were created/designed, why of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? That implies randomness, NOT design. IMO, a designed system would have 3 codons for each AA and two each for 'stop' and 'start'. Agree/disagree?

Disagree. Humans know very little at this point in time. To even think that we could prove or disprove the existence of God is foolish at best. Unfortunately, our academic institutions are replete with a cadre of evolutionist hell-bent on excoriating anyone who goes against their "religion." It's like the Salem Witch-hunts never ended. Any academic who even breathes the words 'Intelligent Design' will be ostracized in a New York minute, never to teach at a mainstream University again.

That's because they can't answer the simple question I posed. What about life indicates some sort of design? What would Iders be teaching anyway, if they can't reconcile things like what I brought up. I'm not trying to disprove God, just the notion that we were created a la Genesis or that evolution was guided by anything other than the Laws of Chemistry and Physics.

 

[konradv]

Science has proved over and over again that life can not come from nonliving material.

Source? People have tried, but failure doesn't prove impossibility. The tests I know of showed the formation of organic compounds, but to actually create life would probably take longer than a 100 lifetimes.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I've asked this question in several posts, but haven't had anyone address it, so I'm giving it its own thread.

If we were created/designed, why of 64 possible mRNA codons coding for 20 amino acids do some AAs have one codon and some as many as 6? That implies randomness, NOT design. IMO, a designed system would have 3 codons for each AA and two each for 'stop' and 'start'. Agree/disagree?

Uh . . . actually I did address it on another thread. Sadly, you don't know what you're talking about. . . . You've mostly got this all wrong, konradv.

That's because they can't answer the simple question I posed.

There are 64 different messenger RNA (mRNA) codons coding for 20 amino acids, actually, 61 coding for amino acids and three stops. That merely means that the 20 amino acids are variously coded for by an overlapping system of "synonyms", i.e., 1 to 6 variously "spelled" codons (or "words") that code for the same amino acid(s). This is not the stuff of randomness; it's the stuff of efficiency and versatility. This dynamic allows a small handful of "letters" to be combined into a relatively small number of the same "words" that can be variously combined to code for the production (or translation) of thousands of different proteins of varying mass and complexity . . . out of just 20 amino acids.

The blueprints for the many different proteins are encoded in DNA. mRNA strands are copies of these coded blueprints, which are read by ribosomes. Ribosomes translate the coded blueprints, word-by-word, into the corresponding amino acids and link them into peptide chains with the assistance of transfer RNA (tRNA).

Amino acids don't have codons of any kind. Strands of mRNA do. Amino acids are the substance of the information contained in codons. Codons are comprised of nucleic material. Each codon (or "word") consists of three nucleotides (or "letters") coding for one amino acid. There are two known universal start codons (or alternatives) and three known universal stop codons that tell the ribosome how to begin the respective peptide chain and where to cut it loose. Ribosomes don't start and stop with single amino acids; they're the monomers of the polymers.

What you appear to be saying here is that there should only be one mRNA codon for each of the 20 amino acids, with an additional 20 starts and 20 stops if the designer were intelligent. So 60 mRNA codons in all for each of the 20 amino acids, even though RNA is comprised of 4 different types of nucleotides yielding 64 different combinations? That would evince a designer?

I submit to you that the designer of such a clunky and vastly less dynamic system, indeed, a system that wouldn’t produce proteins at all, would have to be retarded.

Whatever you're saying here doesn't make any sense however it's rendered. You don't really understand the nature of the system that is, and you don't understand the utter uselessness of the system you would attribute to an intelligent designer.

This might help you understand things better:

Roughly, proteins are infrastructural, catalytic, metabolic and storage mechanisms. Nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) store, transmit and decode genetic information; they also perform structural, regulatory, cellular signaling, metabolic and co-catalytic tasks.

Amino acids are composed of an amine group (a nitrogen atom with a lone pair, i.e., a pair of valence electrons), a carboxylic acid group (a carbonyl and a hydroxyl), and a side chain. Their elemental constituents are carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sometimes sulfur.

A nucleic acid forms when two or more nucleotides combine by way of the covalent bond between the sugar of one nucleotide and the phosphate group of the next; hence, nucleic acids are simply macromolecules (polymers) composed of at least two or more nucleotides (monomers).

A nucleotide is composed of a nucleoside, a five-carbon molecule of a ribose sugar and at least one of three phosphate groups. A nucleoside is composed of a nucleobase bound to a five-carbon molecule of ribose sugar. The five nucleosides of living organisms are adenosine, guanosine, uridine, cytidine and thymidine. The five corresponding nucleobases are adenine, guanine, uracil, cytosine and thymine. Hence, nucleotides form when a nucleobase is combined with a ribose sugar and a phosphate group. The sugar of ribonucleotides is ribose; the sugar of deoxyribonucleotides is deoxyribose.

The "skeletal" structure of adenine and guanine is purine (a pyrimidine ring fused to an imidazole ring), thus, the purine bases. The "skeletal" structure of cytosine, thymine and uracil is pyrimidine (a heterocyclic ring with two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3), thus, the pyrimidine bases. Nucleotides can contain either a purine or a pyrimidine base. In both DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid) the purine bases, of course, are adenine and guanine; however, the pyrimidine bases in DNA are cytosine and thymine, while the pyrimidines in RNA are cytosine and uracil. Hence, RNA uses uracil in place of thymine.

Adenine always pairs with thymine (or uracil in RNA) by way of two hydrogen bonds, and guanine always pairs with cytosine by way of three hydrogen bonds.

. . . There are a total of 22 standard, proteinogenic amino acids. Twenty of them constitute the fundamental building blocks of life, and these are fed into specialized cellular machines (ribosomes) that read (or decipher) encoded bites of information divulged by messenger RNA (mRNA) and then "translate" that information into proteins. The encodements are derived from an organism's genes, which are composed of variously numbered and arranged codons, with each codon consisting of three adjacent nucleotides. In other words, an mRNA molecule is a copy of a gene's sequentially arranged codons and is used by a ribosome as a template for the correct sequence of amino acids in a particular protein. Hence, ribosomes translate codons, one after the other, and, with the assistance of transfer RNA (tRNA), appropriate the corresponding amino acids, bind them together in the specified order and produce peptide chains (proteins).

An organism's genes are contained in its DNA (or in its RNA for many types of viruses, which, technically, are not organisms, at least not in any sense with respect to their dormant state). An organism's genome is the entirety of its hereditary information, consisting of both the genetic and the structural sequences of its combined DNA. The genome is the master blueprint of an organism's essential design and dynamics.

The assembly of 20 of the 22 standard amino acids are encoded for by the universal genetic code, i.e., the code that is found in all living organisms. Hence, these 20 are used by all living organisms for the creation and maintenance of their essential design and dynamics. The other two standard amino acids—selenocysteine and pyrrolysine—are also assembled proteinogenically, i.e., inside ribosomes via alterations of certain canonical amino acids during the initial stage of protein synthesis. These alterations, encoded by UGA and UAG codons, are incorporated (or inserted) by dissimilar mechanisms involving discrete or highly specialized mRNA and tRNA molecules. In other words, these co-transitional mechanisms and, therefore, these amino acids are not found in all living organisms. Selenocysteine is found in all eukaryotic organisms and in some prokaryotic organisms. Pyrrolysine is found in prokaryotic organisms only (i.e., in the enzymes of some methanogenic archaea and bacteria). Only one organism—an archaea species—is known to have both.

Some routinely confound the distinction between standard and nonstandard amino acids. The distinction between them is based on the phases of protein synthesis, not on the processes/mechanisms associated with the synthesis of amino acids. Accordingly, the standard amino acids are the initial components of the translational phase of protein development, and the transitional phase occurs inside an organism's ribosomes. The nonstandard amino acids are the specialized components of the modification phase of protein development, and the post-transitional, modification phase involves certain metabolic processes that occur outside the organism's ribosomes. Hence, nonstandard amino acids are those that have been chemically modified after they have been incorporated into proteins, as well as those that are found in organisms, but not found in proteins. In addition to these, there exist an unknown number of abiotic amino acids.

The twenty canonical amino acids are alanine, arginine, asparagine, aspartic acid, cysteine, glutamic acid, glutamine, glycine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, proline, serine, threonine, tryptophan, tyrosine and valine. These are divided into the essentials and nonessentials: (1) the essentials are those that an organism cannot synthesize inside its own body for itself, so they must be ingested, acquired from an organism's diet; (2) the rest are said to be nonessential because they are already produced by the organism's body. For humans, the essentials are those contained in the proteins that build muscle and organs. Human adults can synthesis 10 of the 20 canonicals via replication or intermediate metabolic processes. The rest are readily acquired from animal flesh. —Michael David Rawlings, Abiogenesis: The Holy Grail of Atheism​

Any more questions?