Originally Posted by
wogoga
Typical dogmatic reasoning: "Despite contradictions and lacking explanations, our beliefs are nevertheless correct."
I expressed no beliefs about how axon guidance works. Nor ddid I claim that the beliefs that I don't have were correct. Nor did the views that I didn't express have contradictions in them.
My point, let me restate it, is that lacking a complete explanation for something does not allow you to conclude that psychons are doing it, still less to take the
absence of a complete explanation as evidence for psychons.
Quote:
A typical sign of dogmatism is ignoring logical inconsistencies. For instance: On the one hand, the fact that computer-implemented algorithms cannot be improved by randomly changing bits or bytes ...
This is not true.
Another sign of dogmatism is ignoring facts.
Look up,
e.g. Tierra.
Quote:
On the other hand, the highly complex architecture of the human brain at birth is explained by the assumption that the necessary information is somehow generated by an algorithm. Do you have any idea, how enzymes could implement such an algorithm?
Just as I challenged you to find an enzyme without a gene, now I'd like you to find a metabolic process without an enzyme of functional RNA.
Quote:
And by the way, panpsychism (or better: pandualism) is a fully legitimate hypothesis with a long tradition. I know that it is a long and difficult process to substantially change one's own world view, e.g. from pure materialism to the recognition of psychons. For me, this step was not so difficult, because already in former lives I had considered panpsychism as a reasonable scientific hypothesis.
Quote:
Not even the assumption that proteins are fully coded by the DNA is true. The genetic code includes twenty amino acids. Apart from these amino acids many proteins contain other amino acids and other components ...
I am not sure which of many facts well-known to biologists you're trying to refer to, but the mechanisms underlying these facts are well-known and do not involve psychons doing magic.
Now, let's make it simple.
Find me a polypeptide without a gene. It's a simple question. Don't waffle, don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, fiind a polypeptide without a gene.
Quote:
The genetic code is not universally valid as it was initially assumed. Several exceptions have been found.
I know that; I have no idea why you mention it.
Quote:
Genes of plants and animals regularly contain non-coding sequences. These introns must be cut out from the RNA copies of the genes. The information indicating which regions represent no code and must be removed is not coded.
Wrong.
Quote:
Some introns even cut out themselves. In several cases, RNA nucleotides are changed, deleted or inserted (RNA editing) before translation starts. In order to produce correct proteins, ribosomes sometimes skip nucleotides instead of translating them. Even from the translated sequences sometimes parts are cut out before protein folding starts. All this is not coded!
Wrong.
Quote:
After transcription, many amino acid sequences efficiently take on a stable form. Biotechnologically produced, random sequences do not fold to a protein.
Every polypeptide is a polypeptide. Do you mean that most of them don't have a stable tertiary structure?
Quote:
The common explanation is that proteins have been selected during evolution to fold properly. Yet, if only a very small proportion of possible sequences take on a stable form, only this small proportion can undergo selection of protein function, and the probability that random mutations destroy stability is very high. Furthermore, it is improbable that a protein, selected for a stable form, also acts as a catalyst for complex functions.
It would be even more unlikely if an
unstable structure could act as a catalyst.
Quote:
On the other hand, there are related proteins of similar form and function, whose amino acid sequences have drifted apart substantially.
Yes, biology is robust, isn't it?
Quote:
There are even cases where the completely different amino acid sequences, corresponding to different reading frames of a given RNA sequence (frameshift), result in correct proteins or parts of proteins.
I know that, too. This is just standard creationist fare. "It's complicated, so it can't have evolved".
But the fact (which you denied above) that computer programs and electronic circuits and so forth produced by variation and selection show similar complexity despite a similar apparent lack of robustness shows that your incredulity is misplaced.