Re: The code of life (genetic code) has been working since Creation

[Andrew]

"Frank Lee" wrote in message news:cad6ohh372tdoff51...@4ax.com...

> How does the quaternary digital code work?

The code of life (genetic code) has been working ever
since creation. We would not exist without it. It is a
quaternary digital code.

There are two DNA strands known as polynucleotides.
They are composed of simpler monomeric units called
"nucleotides". Each nucleotide is composed of one of
four nitrogen containing nucleobases, as follows.

1. cytosine [C],

2. guanine [G]

3. adenine [A]

4. thymine [T]

It is the sequence of these bases that is in a digital code
format that carries the information for the synthesis of
all living things. This is a fact of molecular biology.

Such "code" does not originate apart from an intelligent
agency that originated it.

This "Intelligent Agency" would be ---> our Creator.

[Andrew]

"Oko Tillo" wrote in message news:07408d8a-336b-4378...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:

> Frank didn't ask you to go google up the pieces, he
> asked you how they work.

If one is ignorant of the Central Dogma of biology they
could and should look it up. This has been posted before.

> You know, what the sequence by which this (degenerate) "digital code"
> gets translated into what class of compounds?
>
> Details such as:
>
> Which strand gets translated -- sense or antisense?
>
> How can the RNA polymerase can "see" the nucleotides
> though they are normally wrapped in histones?
>
> In DNA, guanine pairs with cytosine, adenine with thymine.
> Each gets translated into its partner when the DNA is
> transcribed into the mRNA .. except one. Which one is that?
>
> Does transcription start at the 3' end or the 5' end?
> (full disclosure; I'd have to look that one up myself if anyone asked)
>
> In this overall process, a negative of a negative makes a positive.
> How?
>
> This process starts in the nucleus, but doesn't end there. What happens?
>
> The mRNA copy of the DNA ends up in which cytoplasmic organelle?
> What are tRNAs and how are they involved?


Interesting you know this but fail to consider that although
biological proteins compose all living things, they are not
synthesized except in this process that exists..only in living
things.

So if there was a primordial soup of amino acids, it would
not result in a single biological protein.

If folks knew this, it would save them from a lot of foolish
origin of life scenarios which are contrary to known science.


_____________________________________________

> The resultant proteins are useless until which final step?
>
> This was an open book quiz. Feel free to look up any answers
> you don't know off the top of your head. You'll learn oodles
> of interesting stuff along the way, and will be able to make
> even better posts in the future.
>
> Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Frank Lee]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:cad6ohh372tdoff51...@4ax.com...
>
> > How does the quaternary digital code work?
>
> The code of life (genetic code) has been working ever
> since creation. We would not exist without it. It is a
> quaternary digital code.

You are repeating yourself again. You obviously don't
know how the quaternary digital code works, but Sri has
already taken you to the woodshed over that.

It's strange that you don't want to talk any more about
the huge body of evidence supporting natural abiogenesis,
Andrew. What's up with that?

> > > Frank Lee is the one who was
> > > caught lying to us recently.
> > >
> > > His false claim:
> > >
> > > "There is a huge body of evidence
> > > to support natural abiogenesis."
> > > ~ "Frank Lee"
> > > Turns out that that was a > big lie < !
> >
> > Nope, it's a true fact, as you already know. Did you
> > read the huge body of evidence that I pointed you to?
> >
> > Obviously not, since you would still be reading it
> > instead of coming back pretending it doesn't exist.

Well, have you read the huge body of evidence yet?


> > Did you even read the remedial material yet? Here it is
> > again:
> > <https://www.amazon.com/dp/1119345375>

Well, have you read the remedial material yet?


> > > Here is the truth. . . . . . . . .
> > >
> > > "The origin of life remains an
> > > unsolved scientific problem."
> > > https://tinyurl.com/5d3eamcd
> > >
> > > In other words, we have no scientific
> > > evidence that life could originate by
> > > naturalistic causes only.
> >
> > You're lying again, since it doesn't at all mean there's
> > no scientific evidence for abiogenesis. It only means we
> > don't know exactly how abiogenesis happened. As you have
> > been told many times, but you prefer to run with the lie.

Well, are you ready to recant your lies yet?


> > There's certainly no evidence for GOB creating life,
> > which is the story you are shamelessly shilling as a
> > professional charlatan.
> >
> > There are competing hypotheses for how abiogenesis
> > occurred. In fact, you are on record as supporting Dr.
> > Carter's RNA + Peptide hypothesis over the RNA-Only one.
> >
> > Explain again why RNA + Peptides is more plausible than
> > RNA-only?
> >
> > When are you going to show us a model for creationism/ID?
> >
> > When do you think the earth was created?
> >
> > When do you think life was created?
> >
> > What country are you in?

> >
> > How does the quaternary digital code work?
> >

> > What's the difference between supporting that something
> > happened, and proving how it happened?

You aren't able to answer any questions at all?

Really, Andrew. If you were a seeker of the ~ Truth ~
you should have been able to answer all these things for
us, even if you have to research a bit. After all, they
are all about matters you have raised before.

One can only conclude you aren't interested in the
---> Truth, you only want to disseminate propaganda.

Whose purposes are you serving?

[Andrew]

"Frank Lee" wrote in message news:82aaohptq4j26fru5...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Frank Lee" wrote:
>>

>> > How does the quaternary digital code work?
>>
>> The code of life (genetic code) has been working ever
>> since creation. We would not exist without it. It is a
>> quaternary digital code.
>
> You are repeating yourself again. You obviously don't
> know how the quaternary digital code works,

We went over this repeatedly. It is real. It is working
every day. The question and issue here is...the origin
of the code.

Such "code" as this does not originate apart from an

intelligent agency that originated it.

> It's strange that you don't want to talk any more about
> the huge body of evidence supporting natural abiogenesis,

We also went over this repeatedly. Although the issue
is addressed, there is no evidence to say that it occured
that way.

[Frank Lee]

"Andrew" <andrew.3...@usa.net> wrote:

> "Frank Lee" wrote in message news:82aaohptq4j26fru5...@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Frank Lee" wrote:
> >>
> >> > How does the quaternary digital code work?
> >>
> >> The code of life (genetic code) has been working ever
> >> since creation. We would not exist without it. It is a
> >> quaternary digital code.
> >
> > You are repeating yourself again. You obviously don't

> > know how the quaternary digital code works, but Sri has
> > already taken you to the woodshed over that.
>

> We went over this repeatedly. It is real. It is working
> every day. The question and issue here is...the origin
> of the code.

The "code" came about by evolution. What else is it that
evolved, after all?

The first replicators may have been as simple as RNA
molecules. How much information is in that? Everything
after that was variation and selection. Why do you keep
asking?

> Such "code" as this does not originate apart from an
> intelligent agency that originated it.

How do you know?

Oh, yeah. You just made that up.

That's not science, it's ---> ~fantasy~.

> > It's strange that you don't want to talk any more about
> > the huge body of evidence supporting natural abiogenesis,

> > Andrew. What's up with that?
>

> We also went over this repeatedly.

And you also snipped, dodged, evaded, and dissembled

repeatedly.

> Although the issue
> is addressed, there is no evidence to say that it occured
> that way.

There is a lot of evidence that it occurred naturally.
There is no evidence that it was done magically by a
magic Creator entity.

Why don't you want to discuss how this Creator might have
done it?

Why don't you have a model for Creation?

> > > > > Frank Lee is the one who was
> > > > > caught lying to us recently.
> > > > >
> > > > > His false claim:
> > > > >
> > > > > "There is a huge body of evidence
> > > > > to support natural abiogenesis."
> > > > > ~ "Frank Lee"
> > > > > Turns out that that was a > big lie < !
> > > >
> > > > Nope, it's a true fact, as you already know. Did you
> > > > read the huge body of evidence that I pointed you to?
> > > >
> > > > Obviously not, since you would still be reading it
> > > > instead of coming back pretending it doesn't exist.
> >

> > Well, have you read the huge body of evidence yet?

Well, have you? You are a seeker of truth, are you not?

> > > > Did you even read the remedial material yet? Here it is
> > > > again:
> > > > <https://www.amazon.com/dp/1119345375>
> >
> > Well, have you read the remedial material yet?
> >
> >
> > > > > Here is the truth. . . . . . . . .
> > > > >
> > > > > "The origin of life remains an
> > > > > unsolved scientific problem."
> > > > > https://tinyurl.com/5d3eamcd
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words, we have no scientific
> > > > > evidence that life could originate by
> > > > > naturalistic causes only.
> > > >
> > > > You're lying again, since it doesn't at all mean there's
> > > > no scientific evidence for abiogenesis. It only means we
> > > > don't know exactly how abiogenesis happened. As you have
> > > > been told many times, but you prefer to run with the lie.
> >
> > Well, are you ready to recant your lies yet?

Well?

> > > > There's certainly no evidence for GOB creating life,
> > > > which is the story you are shamelessly shilling as a
> > > > professional charlatan.
> > > >
> > > > There are competing hypotheses for how abiogenesis
> > > > occurred. In fact, you are on record as supporting Dr.
> > > > Carter's RNA + Peptide hypothesis over the RNA-Only one.
> > > >
> > > > Explain again why RNA + Peptides is more plausible than
> > > > RNA-only?
> > > >
> > > > When are you going to show us a model for creationism/ID?
> > > >
> > > > When do you think the earth was created?
> > > >
> > > > When do you think life was created?
> > > >
> > > > What country are you in?
> > > >

> > > > How does the quaternary digital code work?
> > > >

> > > > What's the difference between supporting that something
> > > > happened, and proving how it happened?

Oops! Andrew snips and runs again.

What else is a disinformation agent to do?