Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, August 29, 2011

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology Textbooks- Proof-reading and Error-correction

Back to the positive evidence for Intelligent Design:

It isn't so much that cells cannot live without proofreading and error-correction, rather it is that proof-reading and error correction are evidence for Intelligent Design for the simple reason is that it takes knowledge to proofread and knowledge to correct any errors.

In order to proofread you have to know what you are reading and in order to correct any errors you first have to identify, ie know, the error and also know how to correct it.

This also leads us back to cause and effect relationships. In accordance with uniformitarianism only agencies are capable of such a thing.

See also DNA Repair


  • At 8:08 PM, Blogger Tantalus Prime said…

    I'm not sure of the point here Joe. Certainly you aren't suggesting that PCNA and DNA Polymerase are intelligent agents? So, what is doing the "knowing" here?

    As DNA polymerase goes along if an incorrect nucleotide is put in place the process stops because of steric restraints. There is nothing to "know", the polymerase simply can't continue. Furthermore, there are only four options to choose from. It's not like the polymerase has to figure out which nucleotide is the right one (hydrogen bonds guide the proper nucleotide into place 999 times out of 1000).

    Mismatch repair, same thing. The daughter strand is marked by ligations so if a mismatch gets by the polymerase, PCNA can repair the right strand. There is no "knowledge" beyond the fact that there is an existing copy (the mother strand) to compare to. Once again, because of hydrogen bonds, there is only going to be one nucleotide that fits properly into that spot.

    It isn't knowledge. It's chemistry all the way down.

  • At 7:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hello again Tantalus!

    I am saying those macromolecules are programmed, meaning they "know" just as programs "know", just as spellchecker "knows".

    Also with ID some/ most mutations are directed to occur so the DNA polymerase and PCNA need to "know" that and respond accordingly- ie not "correct" it.

  • At 11:15 AM, Blogger Tantalus Prime said…

    Joe said "I am saying those macromolecules are programmed, meaning they "know" just as programs "know", just as spellchecker "knows"."

    To use the program analogy, which I believe to be a poor one, the program for DNA polymerase would be something like this

    10 MOVE
    30 GOTO 10

    (Yes, Basic. I am old)

    The movement of polymerase is constrained by its DNA binding properties. It can only move in the 5 to 3 prime direction. This is like saying a ball "knows" to roll downhill. So it doesn't even need to be programmed to move. Or remove obstacles because the steric constraints of nucleotide errors will force them out of the way, most of the time. So it doen't need programming for that either. Chemistry, not knowledge.

    As I said before, hydrogen bonds determine which nucleotide gets put in place during replication. When polymerase puts hypoxanthine opposite a cytosine it does so because it binds so well. This is despite the fact that hypoxanthine, a deaminated form of adenine, should really be paired with thymine. It is precisely because there is no knowledge and no programming that such an error occurs.

    We can use this to our advantage however. When I do a BrdU incorporation study I hijack the replication process into putting BrdU in where it should be putting in thymidine, allowing me to determine which cells have undergone replication.

    "Also with ID some/ most mutations are directed to occur so the DNA polymerase and PCNA need to "know" that and respond accordingly-ie not "correct" it."

    I see you have proposed a mechanism by which ID might work. Congratulations, you are a better scientist than Meyer, Dembski, Behe, et al. Now all you need to do is catch polymerase in the act of doing this and describe the mechanism by which it is told to ignore errors. Oh, and find the designer that is pulling the levers in the background.

  • At 12:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks again. Perhaps the knowledge went into making the DNA and DNA polymerase.

    Also no need for a designer to even be around- as I said it is all in the software


Post a Comment

<< Home