Pim says:
>Now wouldn't it be cool if there was a more scientific definition as >well.
It sure would. So, why don't we all put our heads together and come up with
one?
snip
Pim, refering to genetic code arising from natural interactions:
>Of course there are two problems here 1) are these interactions >random
There could have been a chemical tendancy in the codons to be attracted to
certain amino acids, and/or the protein interface between those amino acids
and tRNA. Has this been shown?
2)are there any inherent problems why this could NOT have happened ?
Unless there is that molecular tendancy I spoke about, How do you get from
static information (the molecular structure of itself), to dynamic
information, that is being able to store the molecular structure of
independent proteins as well as the ability to create those proteins. Not
only do you have a set of molecules which are symbolic for other molecules,
but you have a mechanism by which to convert those symbols into their
representations.
Pim:
>And yet I have still not seen any coherent argument why information >is an
issue here.
me:
There has been no obervation of symbols used to represent objects that I am
aware of outside of intellegent behavior. The advent of the genetic code is
unobserved.
me previously:
>It takes more evolution, IMO, to come from simple chemicals to >single
celled animals than from those single celled animals to >humans or other
complex organisms.
Pim:
>The data suggest that this might not be correct. Abiogenesis had >only a
0.5 billion years to happen.
This is not a very sound conclusion. Let me use an analogy here.
Lets say Bob, who lives in San Francisco, is visiting me in Portland. He
forgot to say what mode of transportation he would be using, but I know that
he left 2 1/2 hours ago. Seeing him drive up, I comment that driving here
would have taken him 12 hours. To which you reply: The data suggests that
this might not be correct. Bob had only 2 1/2 hours to drive here.
Your reasoning is based on the assumption that abiogenesis is fact. It is
not. It is a theory. The time factor may falsify it. We do not know
enough yet to make any conclusions.
Ami Chopine
amka@vcode.com