Joined: Oct. 2005
Someone asked Joe G to explain his comment that
|17. Joseph // Dec 25th 2006 at 8:10 pm|
Out of the 20 amino acids that can be found in living organisms only 2 have only one corresponding codon(triplet). This is a perfect way to use a limited number of amino acids in many different ways.
Viva the dsign inference…
Comment by Joseph — December 25, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
Joseph has now replied:
Joe G said...
we saw your comment.
We? Is that you and the mouse in your pocket?
Care to explain what in the world that means?
Do you care to answer the $64,000 question? tit-for-tat don't ya know...
(and yes I had planned on an elaboration on my UD post)
What Larry is referring to can be read in its entirety here:
The Sound of The Neutral Theory Exploding:
“Mutations leading to identical amino acid sequences can change protein folding and function”… 12/21/06
“Biologists have realized that the genetic code harbours a layer of information that they have largely ignored."
Have you ever written any computer code or designed an intricate functioning machine?
Ya see in order for me to 'splain myself to you I need to know what you are familiar with pertaining to the world of intentional design.
This Larry Fafarfarwhatever person tells me they have responded thusly:
And they tell me it took about a day for the comment to go through, so I agree the discussion would happen about 10x faster here, so this thread is for that.
|If you want to explain the comment, I'll get them to set up a thread at AtBC. That way comments will appear instantly instead of the next day. And don't worry about my background, I have lots of experience doing things like getting custom-made DNA plasmids created, which I then put into E.coli vectors in order to generate novel proteins. |
I would link to the lab I did it under, but with certain ID people around I want to limit the personal info which gets out there.
I'm just curious how the imperfect redundancy of the codon system somehow means design to you, and perfect design at that.