Here is the video we made on Stephen's channel: ruclips.net/video/eJCmerK0DjQ/видео.html Also, CORRECTION: It's supposed to be "Carl Woese" (I forgot the "e" at the end in my slides). Professor Woese’s work is so important it's worth pointing out the spelling error. Thanks to Bret Corum for pointing this out.
Well it’s entertainment pseudoscience mythology, at least. So much ignorance this video… Oh right a full communication system COMMUNICATING all by luck, it’s intelligently able to communicate but they are just chemicals. Oh and they can also READ RNA 🤦
It’s incredible how you people believe a biological machine can build itself by luck molecules combining together to form everything. You seriously believe something way more complex than the space shuttle built itself by simply having the parts come together by what the primordial soup?!? 🤦🤦
"I was wrong? Please tell me exactly how in a two-hour conversation and release it publically, so everyone can learn from my mistakes." - an honest man
Generally I avoid videos over 45 min long but here I am at the end of a 2 hour 15 min video and I am totally entranced and happy. Well done to both of you for presenting an interesting and compelling discussion of a very complex subject.
Well it’s entertainment pseudoscience mythology, at least. So much ignorance this video… Oh right a full communication system COMMUNICATING all by luck, it’s intelligently able to communicate but they are just chemicals. Oh and they can also READ RNA 🤦
@@godloves9163 So many people missed the circular reasoning "codes and communication systems occurring *naturally* " Those entities (e-Coli, flowers, etc) that do that, are also based on a "code and Communication System": DNA& Ribosome. It's turtles all the way down. They missrepresented the ID argument using Minds instead of Conscious Entity. ID makes it clear that entities with lower level of consciousness are capable to produce code and Communication Systems.
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope. He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot.. Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. Matthew 7:21.....
Love these kinds of videos! A couple of years ago I never would have imagined that conversations like these would be available on RUclips. Thank you for your efforts!
I love this video, and I think it does a great service to clarify the confusion regarding the genetic code as a true code. One small point related to the last part is I was slightly disappointed in your omission of any discussion of the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, the enzymes that actually do the translation of the genetic code by binding each amino acid and its correct tRNA, and putting them together. I know this would have made the video for more complex than it already is, and I perfectly understand your emphasis on ribosomes, but I just wanted viewers to be aware that there is an additional, even more complex level of structure beyond what you so beautifully illustrated. Kudos to Stephen for his willingness to listen to and understand our points regarding DNA and language. I sincerely hope this message will spread.
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope. He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot.. Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. Matthew 7:21.....
@@robbyoung7279 Revelation 21:8 I will tell you what will happen to cowards and to everyone who is unfaithful or dirty-minded or who murders or is sexually immoral or uses witchcraft or worships idols or tells lies. They will be thrown into that lake of fire and burning sulfur. This is the second death. Revelation 21:8
@@SINLEADSTOHELL I can tell you what will happen to absolutely everyone. Eventually, they will all die. So try to enjoy your life when you can, it's the only one you get.
I was initially reluctant to start watching a 2+ hour video but I enjoyed every minute. Nice work guys. Thank you for the precision and clarity of the presentation.
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope. He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot.. Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. Matthew 7:21.....
Hate the YT algorithm for not throwing any one of your many videos into my suggestions. Subscribed and I hope humans in general experience a watershed moment that switches their minds to find these videos entertaining, engaging and worth investing their time in watching (vs Your daily dose of internet for example 😩)
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope. He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot.. Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. Matthew 7:21.....
I absolutely loved this conversation! Jon and Stephen, you are two of my favorite youtubers. One thing I like about Stephen is his willingness to change when presented with information that's counter to his current understanding of a topic. I strive to do the same although I'm afraid sometimes I don't. Keep up the great work!
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope. He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot.. Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. Matthew 7:21.....
@@SINLEADSTOHELL Care to provide any evidence that there is sin, a hell, the devil, a soul, a god (let alone God), heaven, and the Father? That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Your voice isn't cracking. That's a great explanation of the genetic code with a good grasp of bio-chemistry. Definitely the best video on your channel 😃👌
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope. He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot.. Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in. Matthew 7:21.....
Algorithm comment. Your video on gain function research is exactly what the world needs. It's crazy that nobody is trying to establish shared truth right now.
This is two of my favorite worlds colliding. I was stoked when Stephen mentioned one of your videos a while back and while I avoid oar videos over 15-20mins, I’m here for this.
It's so sad that my relatives don't understand english quite well - this is so far the best video I've found to explain this topic. My evangelical creationist relatives (which accept my atheism and are very nice people in general) gifted two books to me which included intelligent design theories and one brother of my grandfather tries to convice me from time to time to believe in the christian god again, stating thats irrational to not believe in god - he made the watch-argument also. Although I've known a lot of the arguments used against it and understood them, I was never able to explain it in a manner like it is done here: By providing the context on a level everybody can understand, even if he or she kbows nothing about philosophy or genetics. This is very very helpful. If you really wan't to adress more people, cooperate with some german-, spanish- and frenchspeaking people who translate/dub/sub this video. A lot of older folks (and even some people my age) don't understand english well enough to follow your explaination so it would be of great value for non-english speakers. Thank you for your work! Science communication is almost as important as the science itself and we can't all study genetics and philosophy 😂
1) Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that presenting numerous examples of other communication systems in nature does not really weaken the Creationist argument for an intelligent designer of genetic information. Could not they simply say that the same designer of the genetic information system also made the other communication systems that are observed in nature? 2) When you refer to coevolution are you suggesting that the codon dictionary and the formation of ribosomes occurred simultaneously? If so then what would be the estimated probability of occurrence and how much time would elapse? 3) Also, you referred to a few scenarios for the origins of ribosomes, but has any researcher crunched the numbers to estimate the probability of occurrence and how much time would elapse for a viable ribosome to be made? These calculations should be made with the formation of ribosomes occurring in an uncontrolled environment and without any aid from researchers.
I'm happy you reference the RNA-Peptide World, as well as the work of Williams and Bowman. There's also George Fox, Charles Carter, and Chatterjee. I might do a review video focusing on the arguments against the [strong] RNA world and for an RNA-Peptide World.
Of course it changed, you and Geoffrey Chaucer do not speak the same lingo. But survival through some biological mechanism? This is foolish. Think again
@@cygnusustus part of it probably have - don't know how the current state of research is but people tend to learn languages very fast and effortlessly in their first years so a certain disposition for language might be passed on biologicially. Also that our moth is formed in a way that can produce sounds we need for human languages is a biological fact. But sure you are right: I guess you mean that a certain language evolved naturally through time and it's use.
@@NeurosenkavalierEmilSinclair "a certain disposition for language might be passed on biologicially" A disposition for language is not a language. 'Also that our mouth is formed in a way that can produce sounds we need for human languages is a biological fact." It's hard to explain how dumb that comment was. A dolphins blowhole is formed in a way that can from sounds dolphins make.
Great video ! I wish you'd gotten more into transfer RNAs, I understand you thought they were an extra complication, but for me realizing the genetic code was implemented in this very simple way - individual RNA molecules that match up to a nucleotide triplet on one end and an amino acid on the other - was transformative for understanding how transcription works, what the genetic code really *is*, how arbitrary it is, how it could evolve, etc. Saying "the ribosome matches them up" and letting the ribosome be a black box about it still makes things seem more mysterious than they are IMO. (or did I in fact misunderstand how simple transfer RNAs are lol)
As a PhD Zoologist that has spent a lifetime studying the current world that has evolved, it is fascinating to look back to where it all started. Chemical evolution is just as real as biological evolution. An early soup full of molecules bumping into each other, with some sticking together because they are more stable, and in the process sequestering smaller molecules, makes those smaller molecules less available thereby setting up competition for them. Voila, you get evolution of increasing complexity. What's so hard to understand about that. This certainly was the most clear-sighted exposition on it. Congrats to both of you. Especially Jon.
The problem I have with concepts of language and coding as applied to biochemistry is that they are loaded with the baggage of coders and linguists. I prefer to look on the process as the interaction of structures where their shape and chemical properties determines what the interaction produces. In the end, DNA, RNA and proteins are molecules. molecules that interact in amazing ways to be sure, but there's no intentionality the way there is with coding and language. While I appreciate the usefulness of the metaphor, it gives creos an entry into the discussion where they simply do not belong.
This needs a million views. The epiphanous ending, that the *quest* for truth *must* triumph over our own dogma of believing that we *have* the truth, is the best part. It would seem that religions are for the lazy, in that the search for truth is claimed to be found in some book or narrative which circularly claims it is "The Truth"(tm). However, this apparent laziness actually stems from whether a human's innate curiosity is destroyed at a young age or not. And if it isn't, whether the person is comfortable with not knowing about the world, and continues to seek answers about it or surrenders to a belief that says it does have all the answers. It would seem that Stephen succumbed to some complacency with "knowing" and seemingly began presenting "dogmatism", as evidenced by some "blowback" about his views. It is great to see the consequences of "being slapped" resulted in this excellent exposition of the current knowledge on biochemistry and what is called "life". This was a marvellous collaboration. Signed with great appreciation, respect and thanks.
Theist here but I guess I was hoping for more delving into the actual origin of the genetic code but you did link some papers. I do think you're vastly oversimplifying what it takes for the code to work. Though you kind of said that. In addition to t-RNAs, there are the enzymes that add the amino acids to the correct t-RNAs but those are encoded by the DNA, as are the ribosomes and tRNAs. I think Abiogenesis could very well be how life first appeared on this planet. But its really hard to conceptualize how you can go from relatively simple chemicals to something that can sustain itself with metabolism and have genetic material for evolution. Once you have something that can reproduce and evolve, it's pretty obvious how things can work through natural selection. One thing I vaguely remember in my little bit of reading on this subject is the idea that the codons are actually not arbitrary and the amino acids have some chemical affinity for them. But maybe I am misremembering.
The paper goes into everything you're asking about except for the amino acid assignment question and the origin of replication. The origin of replication looks to have long predated the ribosome but the replication systems people are playing with right now are either not prebiotically plausible, or don't resemble biology: RNA system: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32558121/ XNA system: www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21128-0 For you chemical affinity question related to the origin of specific codon assignments, that might have been how amino acids were pulled from the environment early on. To translate that into the Signalling Theory jargon I used in this video: chemical affinity was the cue that was later transformed into a signal: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6584/ The enzymes you're asking about are called "amino acyl tRNA synthetases" (aaRSs). The main paper my video is based on has different classes of aaRSs come in late during ribosome evolution (stages 4 and 6) after partial control of protein synthesis is achieved. www.researchgate.net/publication/341198205_Root_of_the_Tree_The_Significance_Evolution_and_Origins_of_the_Ribosome
Hi, love RR and enjoyed your portion of his video on co-evolution of language. While i intend to watch this, may i suggest a short or 10min version to motivate those with a slight aversion to the length. You also repeat yourself a couple of times right in the beginning which increases that aversion slightly more.
I have read some things about possible origin of genetic code, along with a lot more of valuable information in a great book by Michael Nikitin, which, unfortunately was published only in Russian, and has never been translated to other languages, as far as I know. But it was one of the best books about scientific discoveries I have read, because it didn't oversimplify things to the level of kindergarten. Unfortunately, many popular books about science from English-speaking authors do that very often in recent times
Even electrons send signals to other electrons to get them to change energy levels. Depending on what frequency signal they interpret will result in different energy levels and effects. In a way, electrons have a language. Exciting isn't it?
Wow. Talk about begging the question! (24:03) "So, Ham's statement of, "... languages only ever come from intelligence ..." - that's a direct quote - it translates to 'languages, "p," implies an intelligent designer, "q." ' " (This is so many quotes deep, it's really hard to transcribe, but think I got it.) Continuing at (24:15) "Given this, would you agree with me in saying that according to this definition DNA is not one [a language]?" My question: Why? Because you have already made it one of your premises that DNA does not come from an intelligence? This is classic 'begging the question.' You've decided from the beginning that DNA does not come from an intelligent agent, therefore, since languages only come from intelligences then DNA is not a language.
There is no language and letter are merely representative of the names we gave to 5 nucleobases. These are simply chemicals having natural chemical reactions. 🤦 we know that the elements that make up the organic macromolecules (Proteins, Lipids, Carbohydrates and Nucleic Acid), which are Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, Sulphur and Selenium are found naturally in space. We know that the organic macromolecules are found naturally in space. We know that not just the 20 amino acids that compose proteins are found in space, but that over 500 amino acids are found in space. We know that different protein folds cause a protein to do different things and that proteins fold naturally due to their composition of amino acids. We know that lipids are naturally hydrophobic and naturally make a sphere when in water, and when fused with a phosphate they naturally make the phospholipid bilayer that is the cell membrane.
@@rubiks6 Humanity. Humanity has a body of knowledge that has been collected and proven for a fact. I suggest taking a college science class, or at least studying it autodidactically.
Assuming the outcome would harm the research either way, assuming DNA was created, when a creator cannot be found or proven, would be more harmful. But still we should look at DNA from the most unbiased perspective possible.
Just like science RR is subject to change and improvement to better comport to reality. This is how we know science is right and religion is a fail. Great stuff!
if the universe was just in any way Jon this would have far more views. That was worth a subscription. one comment, I forget the paper, but I read that the genetic code evolved for evolvability, ie: that out of the 10^84 combinations that you mention, it is easiest for mutations to be functional in some form. Am I remembering this right? it certainly seems plausible.
Right at the very beginning of this video, when you first said that DNA had properties of a language. I instantly thought of the molecules that act like a type of “punctuation”, a full stop, within DNA. Does anyone know? Have I got this wrong?
Dna has properties of language …. “My substance was not hid from thee, When I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; And in thy book all my members were written, Which in continuance were fashioned, When as yet there was none of them.” Psalm Not saying you have to believe anything nor am I implying I have to be right , but just read that paragraph with a non bias and tell me that doesn’t allude to Dna of creation It’s important in my oppinion to not trash the writings because you hate the author just treat it as fiction Much love friend stay safe
@@Mellownius I did read it with an unbiased eye, or I tried to. But it is a massive stretch to read anything about DNA into that passage. I think it would be retrofitting an idea into the writings of someone, that had absolutely no idea about genetics.
@@budd2nd stretching and retrofitting are acceptable in my oppinion .. evolution does as well … No harm in simply reading and judging the words not the author of the words even if you treat it as fiction … I’ve listened to and read several talks on the connection of dna and that particular psalm and it’s fascinating ..
This is interesting because the brilliant historian of science Lily E Kay wrote a book called "who wrote the book of life?" (which is nothing close to easy reading fyi) Where she touches on the scriptural metaphors to the "book of life". She also explains why the genetic 'code' is not a code, or a language or information
I watched the entire video. John is very intelligent and explained the ideas of linguistics, in orgnsims well. I enjoyed watching. He agrees that there is language expressed in the genetic code, and admits that the assignment has been "created" a very long time ago. I do not see that he explained how this "created" assignment need not be the product of an intelligent mind.
Just throwing a wrench in the language bit, but... Doesn't that definition of language overlaps with the definition of communication? Shouldn't language be based on abstract signs, instead of physical ones?
@@whatabouttheearth It seems that Batesian mimicry is the term for that specific form of coercion - as defined in the video. Aggressive mimicry, where a predator or parasite mimics a harmless species, would be the opposite yet also a form of coercion.
@@infinitemonkey917 Mullerian mimicry is also another form of mimicry where animals with aposematic traits are mimicked by others which are a threat, so say a poisonous amphibian mimicks the bright color (aposematic trait) of another poisonous amphibian. I still don't know if I would define mimicry as coercion, since I'm thinking of coercion as a projective action and not a repellent action. I must of ADDd on that past of the video though, I'll have to re scan it.
(Don't take this too seriously, just entertaining) For premise 3 to be true, there would have to be a greater amount of cheese loss per hole than gained from "more cheese". If this is the case then granting premise 2 would make premise 3 false. More holes > less cheese Not less cheese (from premise 2) Therefore not more holes (modus tollens) That's assuming you mean "less cheese" as a contrary to "more cheese" as the conclusion implies you do. I.e. more total cheese and less total cheese. This is fixed if you use a different definition of "less cheese" such as "more cheese loss from holes". If by "less cheese" you mean "more cheese *loss* from holes", then it's fine. However the conclusion would then need to be extrapolated as "more cheese, more cheese *loss* from holes" or the conclusion wouldn't follow.
In the case of verbal language, the meaning conveyed by the sound is assigned arbitrarily and intentionally. In the case of signaling though, the meaning is intrinsic, and the response is causal and deterministic. Shouldn't this be considered a substantial difference?
In signaling, the meaning is also completely arbitrary (unless it's an index signal, such as a roar indexing the size of an animal). The arbitrary nature of a signal is clear when you realize how long it took us to decode plant-pollinator signals, or when you see that bacterial cells don't have testosterone receptors (though some have digestive enzymes evolved to bind specifically to testosterone of host animals so they can use the signal molecules as food). Signal meaning results of co-evolution.
2:05:06 "the door is open for co-evolution" OK you gave an argument on how proteins could be replicating but what about the ribosome itself? Ribosomes also would need to replicate to evolve into better ribosomes, so does the model say something about it? Maybe I missed it or didn't understand so I would appreciate any information.
The usual unanswered question is how the genetic code was formed? This is the nearest view. I have been telling this thing that in quantum physics it could be said that energy exist forever since the law of conservation of energy states that " energy could neither be created nor destroyed it only transform from one to another" in which sense it means energy is there forever. Second thing I have been telling also that consciousness is inherent in nature in the quantum realm as what appeared in the experiment of double slit board where it seem that particles have consciousness in my view. To support that claim Masaru Emoto's experiment shows that water in jars reacted to words spoken the them. Another thing is that air seem to respond to blow more when farmers whistle when they want more air, which led me to conclude that particles at quantum level have inherent consciousness or in totality the universe is conscious. Considering it collectively energy and consciousness are inherent in nature. With these energy and consciousness it originates species or the caused the formation of the code and also made the galaxies to arranged by themselves. To add to it, there is no "all powerful and merciful God", thus there are no hell, heaven and rapture which made to control people.
Yeah, but without any repairs or selection pressure, by means of outcomes genes could evolve into any random sequence really, i like to say there are a few layers to this, lets say you look at the dna of a cell of some creature, there are certain things that are so critical to cell function, that a cell will die within one or a few cycles independently of intercellular function m, then there is the over all viability of the creature as an ensemble of tissues, you know a pancreas does not survive on its own, then there are external environmental factors, all of these categories of conditions provide some selective pressure, the first being the most unforgiving and the last being where most of the functional selection takes place. However almost all evolutionary selection of dna is actually in the first category in a certain sense, because of the extensive dna repair that goes on in cells, these are random but most of the sequences of changes you would see over some decent time frame if there was no repair mechanism would be fatal eventually, but we are lucky to only have a few of those flaws stick around and usually in one or two cells per random persistent error usually the cells that develop into a problem for the body as a whole are fixed/destroyed. Therefore the 2nd category has less over all mutations to consider in a sense but creates mire systematic pressure on the evolution of the sequence, and then the environment ofc. Viruses for example do not need as strict error correction because they are filtered at a much faster rate, and reproduce much more easily. But for us with tissues that have to reproduce itself we can’t afford to test new forms of liver cells each time cells split. Therefore organisms based on tissues have had to develop better error correction that more rudimentary things like bacteria and viruses. Of bacteria vary a lot but this is one of the reasons viruses for example can evolve so rapidly, they can afford to trow away a third of new viruses or some large %, and if 1/3 of out liver cells straight up died or stopped functioning correctly we would die pretty fast. Evolution is amazing, but really sit back and think about how many mutations and mistakes are corrected by our body, and how the molecular apparatus of our cells have evolved to slow evolution down just so we can have functional tissues :).
58:57 Why does a wolf-pack leader deliberately leave his/her clan to die in the wilderness when his/their time is up and the whole clan mourns his/her/their loss. Telepathy? Love? Both?
I like Stephens point, if we reject premise 1 or 2 entirely depends on what is meant by the word "language". If the theist pack too much into the word 1 then it is true that they need minds, but then dna isn't a language. If they loosen the word "language" up a bit then it is true that dna is a language but then it isn't true to say that they need minds.
15:06 Jon is again speaking metaphorically, but doesn't realize it, when he says that ribosomes read codons. When biologists say that a ribosome (and tRNA) read mRNA, they don't mean that the ribosome literally reads it: they don’t mean the ribosome pulls out its reading glasses and puts them on its face, then uses its eyes to look through the glasses to clearly see individual alphabetical symbols, that the ribosome's brain then groups into words and sentences, extracting semantic meanings out of them, like the unfolding of a story. Biologists don’t mean “read” literally, but metaphorically. What a ribosome does with mRNA is somewhat, kind-of, sort-of, loosely, a bit like what humans do when they read a book. The word “read” was originally co-opted from another field and used as an explanatory analogy, being used figuratively and metaphorically. Ribosomes "read" in a metaphorical, not a literal, sense. Don’t confuse metaphors with the real things. The same is true when biologists say that DNA is a code: the word "code" is being used metaphorically, not literally. That is, biologists are not saying that inside a cell the literal symbols of the genetic code - A, C, G, and U - are literally read by a ribosome in groups of 3, and the ribosome then performs a literal lookup in a lookup table - an array or matrix (or other data structures) that maps keys to values - to literally decode the codon into the name, abbreviation, or single-character symbol of the corresponding amino acid. That is not what occurs inside cells: that is what happens at the human level, in our model that we created.
The word "language" in signaling theory is not literal, it is basically a metaphor. The word "language" has been around for some 800 years, and it meant things such as "words, what is said, conversation, talk", or a particular language (such as English or Arabic). Signaling theory did not begin until around 1973[1] (and for biology, not until around 1975[1]) - some 700 years after the word "language" had been first used and its meanings established. The field of signaling theory borrowed some preexisting words from other fields and used them metaphorically, as explanatory analogies: for example, "language". A "communicate system in signaling theory" is somewhat, kind of, sort of, a bit like a language, if we stretch its meaning, so instead of creating a new technical word from scratch that no one would have any idea what it means, they co-opted an existing word that had, very roughly, a loosely similar meaning. In doing so, signaling theory changed the meanings of those words. In signaling theory, the word "language" does not mean language as it always had, or as the vast majority of people understand the word. Instead, it means what signaling theorists decided to change the word to mean, for their own purposes in their own particular field of study. To pretend that Creationists mean the signaling theory definition of language, specifically, when they use the word "language" in an argument aimed at the general public, is a disingenuous manipulation of the Creationists' argument. Unless the opponent is grossly misusing a word, you don't get to insist they must mean what YOU want a word to mean, instead of what THEY want it to mean, especially not when your meaning is not what average people understand the word to mean, but theirs is. [1] “ST [Signaling Theory], which is only a little more than 30 years old, has now become a branch of game theory. In economics it was introduced by Michael Spence in 1973. In biology it took off not so much when Amotz Zahavi first introduced the idea in 1975, but since, in 1990, Alan Grafen proved formally that ‘honest’ signals can be an evolutionarily stable strategy.” (Signaling theory and its applications. Annuaire de Collège de France (2007-2008). Diego Gambetta)
12:23 You confuse and intermix 2 different things: (a) what occurs inside cells, and (b) the model we humans created at the human level. You do it again at 14:28. The symbols of the genetic code are the A's, C's, G's, and U's that we humans employ in our model. There are no genetic-code symbols - A's, C's, G's, or U's - inside of cells. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. The same goes for the lookup table you show: that array or matrix (or other form) that maps keys (here, triplets of mRNA) to values (here, abbreviations of amino acids, and stop or start). That lookup table exists at the human level, in the model we created and use. Inside cells, there is no lookup table. If a human wants to know what amino acid the "codon" GGG "codes for", we perform a lookup in the genetic-code table and find the value Gly in the intersection of the first-letter group of rows for G, the second-letter column for G, and the third-letter row for G. Nothing like that occurs inside of cells. Nothing. Like. That. Occurs. Inside. Of. Cells.
You make a great argument that DNA has language-like properties, but I think we're in danger of equivocating two very distinct systems if we start calling DNA a full-fledged language. If you have a list of things, say, "HTML, Spanish, Solrelsol, ASCII, Proto-Indo-European, and DNA" - while many of these do share some of the same properties, they're clearly not equivalents. While Spanish, Proto-Indo-European and Solrelsol are what we'd call languages, DNA does not seem to fit in the list. However, I don't think it belongs under the HTML/ASCII list either. We have to be careful with semantic fields across disciplines, or we'll end up like the botanist insisting that tomatoes belong in their fruit salad. In linguistics, languages are social tools. DNA is not a social entity, and it doesn't make much sense to talk about it as a language in the same way we talk about English being a language. A whole boatload of qualities are missing, which for me, disqualifies it, and makes it somewhat unhelpful to refer to DNA as a language, except in a metaphorical sense. I think the key thing is that DNA does not 'talk', like Koko the gorilla did not actually talk (this video does a marvellous job of explaining why: ruclips.net/video/e7wFotDKEF4/видео.html&ab_channel=SoupEmporium). As an aside, it is pretty sad that we put animals through so much torture and abuse to try to prove they can talk. I really hate to side with the creationists here, but when it comes to language capability, humans really are a special case. So much so, that Noam Chomsky's UG still posits that there must be a language module in the brain, even though no evidence has been found so far. Still, I don't think DNA and English belong in the same box. The human ability to communicate is so vastly more complex than DNA, it makes as much sense as calling a bicycle a car, just because it shares some of the same features. Your comments regarding DNA having both signs and syntax makes me wonder though. If syntax could have emerged naturally and is literally a function of our DNA, then perhaps our ability to form complex syntaxes is somehow innate in that sense. I can't see it actually coming FROM our DNA, but DNA seems to set a precedent that our ability to process grammar evolved somehow.
35:34 Regarding watches "We have zero examples of them arising natually" That is precisely the point. We also have zero examples of Language arising naturally.
Written language is a human concept as far as we are aware, while communication between social creatures are emerging behaviours in nature. And some of the smaller creatures are capable to some extent, like birds and cats.
6:40 The genetic code is not a literal code, calling it a code is metaphorical. “The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 led to the next shift in how people understood and talked about genomics. During this phase, *the notion of DNA working as a code became a dominant metaphor* . Today we still often encounter such metaphors in expressions like ‘genetic code’ and the effort to ‘break the code.’ Extending the metaphor, parts of the structure of DNA were often referred to as ‘letters’ and groups of them spelled out ‘words.’” (Advancing Health Literacy: A Framework for Understanding and Action, Christina Zarcadoolas, Andrew Pleasant, and David S. Greer, John Wiley & Sons, Apr 15, 2009, p 192) “Yet, as the author points out, these are just metaphors: analogies, not ontologies. Necessary and productive as they have been, they have their epistemological limitations. Deploying analyses of language, cryptology, and information theory, the author persuasively argues that, technically speaking, *the genetic code is not a code* , DNA is not a language, and the genome is not an information system (objections [that were] voiced by experts as early as the 1950s).” (Stanford University Press, describing the book Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code, by Lily E. Kay, 2000) “The gene had entered the computer age. According to this metaphor, not only did the genetic code contain information, but this information had a special kind of meaning-it was a program, a set of instructions that enabled the cell to carry out a particular activity. However, it is easy to forget that this is a figure of speech rather than being literally true. A gene is like a program, but it is not a computer program and does not function according to the same rules. Similarly, *the genetic code is not literally a code* -it is a process that enables organisms to carry out particular functions by turning stored information into structures or actions using evolved rules.” (1953: When Genes Became “Information”, Matthew Cobb, Cell, Volume 153, Issue 3, 25 April 2013, Pages 503-506) “The metaphor immediately following the introduction of “the genetic code” was constructed as an answer to the question: “In what way is protein synthesis a genetic code?” The answer was: “It translates messages between nucleotides and amino acids.” *The metaphor of the genetic code* became a root-metaphor and expanded from one single metaphor (“protein synthesis is a code”) to an entire network of several interrelated metaphorical expressions." (Communicating novel and conventional scientific metaphors: a study of the development of the metaphor of genetic code, Susanne Knudsen, Public Understand. Sci. 14 (2005) 373-392) “This paper examines the role of metaphors in science on the basis of a historical case study. The study explores how *metaphors* of “genetic information,” *“genetic code,”* and scripture representations of heredity (i.e. the metaphorical comparison of DNA with text and alphabet) entered molecular biology and reshaped experimentation during the 1950s and 1960s.” (Genetic Code, Text, and Scripture: Metaphors and Narration in German Molecular Biology, Christina Brandt (2005), Science in Context, 18, pp 629-648)
The common theistic claim that “language only comes from thinking minds” rarely seems to be properly debunked. No thinking mind “creates” language for itself, it can only “use” the language apparatus that it evolved to have. My ability to talk does not suggest that I “created” my language apparatus (tongue, Broca’s region, larynx, etc.). It also does not imply that an intelligent being cannot then create an analogous set of language apparatuses, as humans obviously have in the form of AI. However, the existence of language in evolved organisms in no way implies “unevolved” design.
I think the way you're using "signal" in the flower and frog examples is actually an analogy. The flowers aren't really signaling that they have nectar, that's just a way that you can (somewhat inaccurately) frame what's happening so you can more intuitively understand the practical upshot of the interaction. The flower that becomes brightly colored when it gets full of nectar isn't doing anything different from what the coercive flower is doing. The only difference is in one case the way the pollinator responds happens to benefit the pollinator and in the other case the way the pollinator responds doesn't benefit the pollinator. You covered that it's signaling if both the sender and receiver benefit from the participating in the communication and that it's coercion if only the sender benefits, but what about if only the receiver benefits? The shape and colors of the gazelle communicates to a lion, "Come eat me if you're hungry," but the gazelle doesn't get anything out of that. I think you're confusing the map for the place. When it comes to what's happening when you press a key on your keyboard, the sender and receiver are also an analogies. Your keyboard isn't sending a signal for your computer to register that a key has been pressed than your hammer is sending a signal for a nail to drive itself into a piece of wood. The only difference is that you can't see the physical reactions that are taking place.
What do you mean by language? Signalling systems exist in nature without mind in many forms: chemical, for example. That is how microorganisms communicate
I’m about half an hour into this and am finding it fascinating. However, I feel as though right from the start there is a false premise going on that you both seem to have conceded to Ken Ham (etc.). That is the premise that human language was designed by an intelligent “creator.” Yes, human language exists because we have a certain kind of intelligence. But I think most linguists would not concede that human language was ever “designed.” There was never a person or committee of persons who got together and thought about how we will have nouns and verbs and sentences and that these particular sounds will stand for these particular objects, etc. Human language evolved and continues to evolve. In fact, it is quite fascinating to see the parallels between linguistics and genetics in that regard. The only languages that I can think of that were actually designed were written western music and computer languages.
Don't forget Klingon and Esperanto, and thanks for including written western music to support your POV. . You may have misinterpreted the approach here though, since I see it as an attempt to dismantle the fail. I thought the intent was pretty clear but I certainly may be wrong. I'd have to watch it again I suppose to be sure
Music is not designed in the way I read your comment. Music is created. As for any piece of music to be considered "valuable" by any human being its "bringing it into being" is beyond any rules and syntax by any stretch of the imagination. I specifically exclude any popular music as of "today", as it has more to do with marketing cloud than quality by SE, in case anyone on YT might mistake popularity with "value" (for lack of a better word). Let me explain. You can know all the rules and syntax of composing music of whichever "kind". And still there is a hidden variable, to the LINEAR THINKING RATIONAL HUMAN MIND, that creates the music that will survive the test of time, i.e. the annual "billboard charts". There is only one Mozart, Beethoven and all the rest. Quite a few I know, that have passed the test beyond MTV etc.pp. as far as I am concerned, but still only a "handful" considering all humanity. And the linear thinking of the rational human mind and its technology inventions have certainly not contributed to reverse these statistics. Worth to think about it. That there is more at work than meets the eye of the linear thinking rational human mind. God, the Old Man with a grey beard should not even pop up as a contestant and if he does there is not much hope for progress, is a pretty good description for the INDESCRIBABLE. People who are full of themselves, no personal offence here, because they have learned the alphabet and read two or three books don't even bother to read the stuff they are claiming that "they" have proven or disproven, by repeating other people's thoughts that sound convincing to the linear thinking rational human mind. I find the topic those two individuals discuss quite interesting, I must admit, even though their attitudes a rather off-putting, listening between the "lines". It says in scripture: "I am who I am." This Source of all existence doesn't need any defence by any of ITS CREATIONS. It simply is what IT IT IS. And everything else is AT ITS SERVICE TO ITS END. And if not it is going to disappear, as "THE EVOLUTIONISTS" rightly claim. So does Scripture! But to know this, one must read it and not only repeat what a prominent advocate of an alternative religion has said. Every human being stumbles over THE BIG QUESTION in one way or another, but abandoning reason for ideology and truth for half-truths is the motorway to everybody's personal hell by Gods standards. Even though it is going to be a different one than the one of his ancestors. The current apocalypse should serve as a reminder of it.
Wow, talk about being full of yourself. I was not talking about the totally of musical expression. I was talking very specifically about the written ‘language’ that was created in the west (in a time before recording was possible) to assist musicians in conveying their musical ideas to other musicians, and which allowed those pieces, written In that way, to be preserved through time. Everything you say about music is also true of literature, including drama (which, like music, involves a performer taking the thoughts of a composer through a written page into a performance that will also involve their own personal expression.
Of course the DNA is rightfully seen as a language! Even when language comes from an intelligence it is still just another expression of evolution at work, and when it comes about spontaneously through other natural acts it sometimes generates an entity where it grows to observe itself intellectually as a form of language. It makes perfect sense.
“I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Marvellous are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, When I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; And in thy book all my members were written, Which in continuance were fashioned, When as yet there was none of them.” Psalm Dna …. The spoken word or the voice of the creator began all matter as we know it … it’s the only way we know language or have a voice 🤩🤩🤩 Much love friend from Alabama
It is indeed a perplexing dilemma. You have attempted to identify the almighty first cause, seemingly a reference to God. Well I am always dubious in situations where so many details are valued, measured, or described in a purely human perspective. Like all heretofore philosophy and theology. Except maybe for Spinoza. He could have been as close to the truth as anyone has been, but what does that really say? Why does it matter? To my mind all of this is like a song, and biology is like a melodic fluctuation in the myriad and universal music of reality.
@@bokononbokomaru8156 does calling it magic make it more unbelievable and therefore easier for you to process ? I guess you perceive the Bible to be mythology proper ? Just to prove you can be objective read something for me as unbiased as you can please friend …. “Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.” Isaiah Does that imply magic for you or no ?
@@Mellownius it is cool & poetic. I do view it as any other myth (which are all fascinating). But, when you suggest in seriousness that the world was created with a spoken word, then that is indistinguishable from magic until you can at least postulate the mechanism by which this was accomplished. Most deities I have heard suggested are synonymous with magic. If you have convincing evidence such a being exists, please present it (words in an old book are not convincing...no matter how pretty)
11:12 I don't think attacking premise 2 is ever useful because the way you need to attack is to disagree with premise 1. I understand that theists use "language" with baggage, i.e., they mean "language" to imply that it is the result of intelligence and therefore it is technically correct to deny premise 2 in the sense they mean it. However, the justification for being able to deny premise 2 goes via premise 1, so one might as well always attack premise and grant premise 2 to hold (using a reasonable interpretation of "language").
Would it be fair to say that DNA is language like, but that it’s not a language And therefore dismiss the premise? Language, as I understand it, is an arrangement of arbitrary symbols and sounds to represent something for the purpose of communication. DNA, conversely, is the arrangement of specific shapes and chemical signatures of molecules which follow the laws of physics and therefore the shapes are not arbitrary in nature and therefore not a language. Conversely, if you disagree with that, then can’t you say that Claiming that DNA is a language (in the YEC premise) commits an equivocation fallacy since it is a language only by a different definition?
*Signaling systems have gradient levels* up to language. DNA has several characteristics of a language. That is a better way to assess it than a binary “Is it a language or not?” But overall, I agree that premise 1 is even weaker. Steelmanning is good, but expanding the meaning of a word in an argument that relies on oversimplification does not work well.
I think that even natural language is not designed by an intelligent mind. Instead, it must have evolved naturally as a communication system between different minds (of the individuals who speak the language). There has never been a drawing board. Only for artificial languages such as Esperanto that is the case. (Note. I posted this after listening for 30 minutes. Now I hear that at about 53:00 Jon is stating almost exactly this point. Apologies.)
How about avoiding the analogy of "code" and instead use the following? Ribosomes are like biological locks requiring 3 (of four different) keys, in order, to link amino acids into chains. DNA /RNA are long (ordered) chains of these keys and serve as templates. The bigger issue is that we don't understand how these chains of "base pairs" were ever able to link in long strands in the first place (the best argument for the hand of God being needed).
🤦 we know that the elements that make up the organic macromolecules (Proteins, Lipids, Carbohydrates and Nucleic Acid), which are Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, Sulphur and Selenium are found naturally in space. We know that the organic macromolecules are found naturally in space. We know that not just the 20 amino acids that compose proteins are found in space, but that over 500 amino acids are found in space. We know that different protein folds cause a protein to do different things and that proteins fold naturally due to their composition of amino acids. We know that lipids are naturally hydrophobic and naturally make a sphere when in water, and when fused with a phosphate they naturally make the phospholipid bilayer that is the cell membrane.
1:19:56 Point 2. is circular reasoning as the life forms themselves are based on an Communication System DNA-RIBOSOME-PROTEIN. And thus the codes and signals are not natural occurring, rather biological. Also if you consider the ID argument as it's *best* defined - for a Conscious Entity and not Mind: *Communication systems are exclusive to conscious entities* And this is the kicker: consciousness is considered to be on a continuum - starting with 0 for rocks, to ~0.0001 for e-Coli to ~0.1 for plants, all the way to ~1 for humans.
At one point you say that to call something 'new functional information' it has to be useful to the organism. This is false. The word 'functional' does NOT mean 'beneficial'. It means it has some effect. That effect can be negative. The function can be negative. Functional information is information that is expressed. Even a gene that cause the death of the organism has performed a function and is functional information.
HEAR ME OUT - Every one got the meaning of the words wrong.There is LANGUAGE, SIGNAL AND CODE. 1.Language is a product of mind bcos in language words have no meaning of their own and are assigned meaning by mind. The meaning of words can be changed and there is no breaking of code or physics. Like when we decided to have a different meaning for words example gay, everyone who said i am a gay person would stop to do so bcos the meaning has changed but the communication goes on. Language also can be taken back, say that was not what you thought it was 2.Signals on other hand can be given by mind or code. Bacteria being a living code rather than a mind. Signals cant be taken back but visual signals can be taken back, smell , electrical etc cant be taken back. It kinda exist in grey area bcos signal is broad word also signal have breaking changes ie you cant replace killing signal(like lion attacking first to show which one to attack to lioness and cubs) for peace without breaking laws of physics. 3. Code is extemly code breaking and will break every thing thats holding together if you switch meaning.( Code here doesn't mean programming language which are called that for obvious reasons) . Like algorithm is code you cant switch diff with integration without breaking everything that produces the reults) . Codes cant be taken back. If meaning of one molecule in dna is switched for other everything that makes it physicaly possible for it to exist breaks.
15:15 "according to these rules, this Genetic code here - this chart here, the fact that we have symbols here, that are not just dictated by physics, they're actually dictated by the evolved structure of the Ribosome and tRNA. These things had to be assigned through an evolutionary process, or *I suppose they could have been assigned through an intelligent design process as well* but there had to be an assignment that happened - of these symbols to the aminoacid that they represent." - Jon Perry
I got about 2/3 of the way in and stopped, mostly because I find discussions of the arbitrary and abstract to be pretty tedious. However, you seemed to indicate that codons are arbitrarily associated with the proteins that are expressed; which is something I hadn’t considered before. In biology, is it as important to discuss it’s seemingly arbitrary nature as it is it’s evident contingent nature? The syntax and meaning of a language are arbitrary only if you examine it in a particularly abstract way. To me, the contingent aspects of biology, and language, are more interesting and pertinent.
If I remember correctly, somewhere after 01:41:24 we talk about the gradual establishment of codon assignments and how it changes selection pressure on genes to align. Maybe that's what you're after? But that section is where we dive into the nature of the genetic code specifically.
It doesn't. the examples of how code and Communication Systems occurred naturally are of Conscious Entities (life forms) that are also based on a code and Communication System: DNA-RIBOSOME-PROTEIN. Good information about that and admitting the language/code aspect of DNA.
Here is Richard Lewontin - a biologist, so your old schtick of "biologists know better" is again shot down. Here he is writing a review of Kay's book in the journal Science, which you might have heard of. He agrees with Kay that DNA is not a language (or a code), and that "language" is used metaphorically when referring to DNA. “The ways in which the metaphors of biology have molded the concepts and experiments of the science have been a preoccupation of the historian of molecular biology Lily Kay. In Who Wrote the Book of Life? her most recent and unfortunately final book (she died of cancer in December), Kay asks how the view that DNA is "information" that is "written" in a "language" whose "words" are in "code" has driven the research program and claims of molecular biology.
…
This, then, raises the problem of the counter-factual conditional that plagues all attempts to understand history: What if? What would have happened had the language metaphor never taken hold in molecular genetics? Would we now be ignorant of the details of the relation between DNA and protein? Would we have a different understanding? Would we know more about the world? or less?
…
A good deal of discussion in the book is devoted to showing why the metaphors of "code," "language," and "information" can be so misleading if taken as isomorphic with the phenomena of molecular genetics. This is especially a problem if these nonbiological notions are taken in their modern analytic and scientific contexts. If "information" is the information of Shannon-Weaver information measures; if "language" is what Jakobson, Chomsky, and other linguists take it to be; if "code" is what the Enigma machine was meant to create; then as Kay so clearly shows, we are badly misled by applying these measures to DNA. But, as she says, "code," "language," and "information" are themselves metaphors, terms appropriated by science and technology and given special content for special purposes.” (R. C. Lewontin, In the Beginning Was the Word, Science, Volume 291, Number 5507, Issue of 16 Feb 2001, pp. 1263-1264)
reason Your distinction between a code and a language was not carefully made. You correctly described the genetic code by using the chart showing the codon assignments to amino acids. What I expected, from the title of the video, was an explanation of how that chart originated, i.e. how the assignments were originally made. Of course there is a complex story to be told about how DNA and the ribosome relate in terms of language, the organism, and the unfolding of life and all its complexity, and that story can largely be explained by processes of natural selection. But the origin of the genetic code is a different matter. As you pointed out, in terms of complexity, the genetic code is closer to Morse Code, with its 40 or so assignments than it is to, say, English with its 100,000 or so assignments. The Morse Code assignments, like the genetic code, can fit on one page. And, if we asked about the origin of the Morse Code, we learn that the assignments came out of Sam Morse's head. The assignments were arbitrary, but he made some deliberate assignments, such as using three symbols for each of the letters SOS, and in assigning the fewest number of dots and dashes to the most frequently used letters. But once he had decided on the assignments he had to do three things to make the system usable: 1. He wrote the assignments down on a sheet of paper. 2. He had to get an agreement among the telegraph operators to use his code in their communications, and 3. He had to provide each and every telegraph operator a copy of the code sheet. Those same three things must be done in biology in order for the genetic code to be useful in the protein synthesis process. So let's identify how those three things happen in biology. 1. If we look into the cell trying to find the codebook, we don't find one. We find that instead of a single "sheet" with all the assignments, like your chart, we find the equivalent of millions of sliced-up copies of the sheet with each slice, or strip, containing just a single assignment. Using the Morse Code example, there would be many strips containing a dash followed by a dot and the assigned letter 'N', and many more such strips each containing just one assignment. In biology, those strips are charged tRNA molecules. That is, a tRNA molecule that has a permanently attached codon at one end (equivalent to the dash and dot) and an actual amino acid molecule of the correct assignment temporarily bound to the other end. When this tRNA molecule is picked up by the ribosome, that amino acid is removed from the tRNA and appended to the growing chain of the protein being built. That discharges the "empty" tRNA molecule back into the soup, ejected like a shell casing after the bullet has been fired. Next is the hard part: recharging the molecule with another correct amino acid. That is where the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases come into play. Once the tRNA is re-charged, it is sent back into the soup to be picked up by a ribosome and re-used. So, the codebook we are looking for is this huge population of charged tRNA molecules floating around in the soup. 2. Getting agreement to use the code among all ribosomes in all cells in all organisms in all species is easy. Normal biological reproduction and development processes simply replicate all the macromolecules involved and pass them along via normal mitosis and meiosis. 3. But passing the codebook to progeny isn't done by replicating a bunch of charged tRNA molecules. Instead, the information in the codebook is carried in the genome and replicated when the genome itself is replicated. The codebook appears in the genome as at least 61 separate and distinct sequences of codons on the genome. To produce a molecule of tRNA, the genome splits open along a sequence, and one half fills back up with nucleotides and is then peeled away and let loose. Then it folds up into the 3D tRNA molecule to form an uncharged molecule. Then an enzyme called aminoacyl tRNA synthetase attaches the correct amino acid (the one that matches the codon in the middle of the tRNA strip) to form a charged tRNA molecule ready for action in a ribosome. The initial origin of those 61 sequences and the sequences required to make all those synthetase molecules, in the DNA is the real mystery. How did they first get established? For more of my opinions on this matter, see paulandellen.com/essays/essay180.htm
![CHILE vs. BRASIL [1-2] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5ObJt_71AYc/mqdefault.jpg)
Here is the video we made on Stephen's channel: ruclips.net/video/eJCmerK0DjQ/видео.html
Also, CORRECTION: It's supposed to be "Carl Woese" (I forgot the "e" at the end in my slides). Professor Woese’s work is so important it's worth pointing out the spelling error. Thanks to Bret Corum for pointing this out.
Well it’s entertainment pseudoscience mythology, at least. So much ignorance this video… Oh right a full communication system COMMUNICATING all by luck, it’s intelligently able to communicate but they are just chemicals. Oh and they can also READ RNA 🤦
It’s incredible how you people believe a biological machine can build itself by luck molecules combining together to form everything. You seriously believe something way more complex than the space shuttle built itself by simply having the parts come together by what the primordial soup?!? 🤦🤦
@@godloves9163 wisdom and knowledge is naturally emergent instead of thought process
@@oilcan3585 a computer comes together naturally and communicates to other computers all by chance.
@@godloves9163 i meant that i think that thought process emerges unnaturally but wisdom and knowledge emerges naturally
"I was wrong? Please tell me exactly how in a two-hour conversation and release it publically, so everyone can learn from my mistakes."
- an honest man
Generally I avoid videos over 45 min long but here I am at the end of a 2 hour 15 min video and I am totally entranced and happy. Well done to both of you for presenting an interesting and compelling discussion of a very complex subject.
Thank you for your efforts! Very interesting 👍🏻
Well it’s entertainment pseudoscience mythology, at least. So much ignorance this video… Oh right a full communication system COMMUNICATING all by luck, it’s intelligently able to communicate but they are just chemicals. Oh and they can also READ RNA 🤦
@@godloves9163
So many people missed the circular reasoning "codes and communication systems occurring *naturally* "
Those entities (e-Coli, flowers, etc) that do that, are also based on a "code and Communication System": DNA& Ribosome.
It's turtles all the way down.
They missrepresented the ID argument using Minds instead of Conscious Entity. ID makes it clear that entities with lower level of consciousness are capable to produce code and Communication Systems.
@@hojda1 🤦 you’re clueless just inventing the most ignorant story I’ve heard in a while…
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope.
He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot..
Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in.
Matthew 7:21.....
Love these kinds of videos! A couple of years ago I never would have imagined that conversations like these would be available on RUclips. Thank you for your efforts!
I love this video, and I think it does a great service to clarify the confusion regarding the genetic code as a true code.
One small point related to the last part is I was slightly disappointed in your omission of any discussion of the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, the enzymes that actually do the translation of the genetic code by binding each amino acid and its correct tRNA, and putting them together. I know this would have made the video for more complex than it already is, and I perfectly understand your emphasis on ribosomes, but I just wanted viewers to be aware that there is an additional, even more complex level of structure beyond what you so beautifully illustrated.
Kudos to Stephen for his willingness to listen to and understand our points regarding DNA and language. I sincerely hope this message will spread.
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope.
He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot..
Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in.
Matthew 7:21.....
@@SINLEADSTOHELL You definitely showed him there.
@@robbyoung7279 Revelation 21:8
I will tell you what will happen to cowards and to everyone who is unfaithful or dirty-minded or who murders or is sexually immoral or uses witchcraft or worships idols or tells lies.
They will be thrown into that lake of fire and burning sulfur. This is the second death.
Revelation 21:8
@@SINLEADSTOHELL Sweet. I'll be meeting most of the characters in the bible then. Including god, who liked a bit of murder himself.
@@SINLEADSTOHELL I can tell you what will happen to absolutely everyone. Eventually, they will all die. So try to enjoy your life when you can, it's the only one you get.
I was initially reluctant to start watching a 2+ hour video but I enjoyed every minute. Nice work guys. Thank you for the precision and clarity of the presentation.
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope.
He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot..
Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in.
Matthew 7:21.....
Hate the YT algorithm for not throwing any one of your many videos into my suggestions. Subscribed and I hope humans in general experience a watershed moment that switches their minds to find these videos entertaining, engaging and worth investing their time in watching (vs Your daily dose of internet for example 😩)
Hey! Very intelligent, rational, analytical people can also enjoy Daily Dose. Raspberries to you.
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope.
He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot..
Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in.
Matthew 7:21.....
@@SINLEADSTOHELL 😴
@@mozkitolife5437 Type these letters into RUclips with no spaces in between to watch scientific evidence of Jesus video
noJ8-6
xpxLU
I absolutely loved this conversation! Jon and Stephen, you are two of my favorite youtubers. One thing I like about Stephen is his willingness to change when presented with information that's counter to his current understanding of a topic. I strive to do the same although I'm afraid sometimes I don't. Keep up the great work!
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope.
He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot..
Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in.
Matthew 7:21.....
@@SINLEADSTOHELL Care to provide any evidence that there is sin, a hell, the devil, a soul, a god (let alone God), heaven, and the Father? That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@@brianh870 Type this into RUclips to watch scientific evidence of hell
vc9c
fbfzans
Relating it to The Watchmaker analogy was a great way to bridge the gap and get you guys on the same page, really enjoyed this one.
Your voice isn't cracking. That's a great explanation of the genetic code with a good grasp of bio-chemistry. Definitely the best video on your channel 😃👌
This is perhaps one of the most enlightening and mind blowing podcasts I've ever heard 🙌🏼 Thank you!
Sin leads to hell, keep focused, the devil is on earth to destroy your soul. But God wants to give you everlasting Joy. But our sin is keeping this from happening. You must stop sinning and turn to Jesus Christ he is your only hope.
He can save you from eternal suffering under the Earth, where hell is hot..
Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in.
Matthew 7:21.....
@@SINLEADSTOHELL I expected the first comment to be this. May you find peace sir
this was absolutely wonderful. I want to express my great appreciation for your effort. thank you Jon
Ex muslim?
Algorithm comment.
Your video on gain function research is exactly what the world needs.
It's crazy that nobody is trying to establish shared truth right now.
This is two of my favorite worlds colliding. I was stoked when Stephen mentioned one of your videos a while back and while I avoid oar videos over 15-20mins, I’m here for this.
Part of the issue is assuming that a language is a binary, that there are no gray areas between language and
non-language.
I was asking myself just two days ago, "why hasn't Stated Casually done any videos lately?" And then I was pleasantly surprised!
It's so sad that my relatives don't understand english quite well - this is so far the best video I've found to explain this topic. My evangelical creationist relatives (which accept my atheism and are very nice people in general) gifted two books to me which included intelligent design theories and one brother of my grandfather tries to convice me from time to time to believe in the christian god again, stating thats irrational to not believe in god - he made the watch-argument also. Although I've known a lot of the arguments used against it and understood them, I was never able to explain it in a manner like it is done here: By providing the context on a level everybody can understand, even if he or she kbows nothing about philosophy or genetics. This is very very helpful. If you really wan't to adress more people, cooperate with some german-, spanish- and frenchspeaking people who translate/dub/sub this video. A lot of older folks (and even some people my age) don't understand english well enough to follow your explaination so it would be of great value for non-english speakers. Thank you for your work! Science communication is almost as important as the science itself and we can't all study genetics and philosophy 😂
1) Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that presenting numerous examples of other communication systems in nature does not really weaken the Creationist argument for an intelligent designer of genetic information. Could not they simply say that the same designer of the genetic information system also made the other communication systems that are observed in nature?
2) When you refer to coevolution are you suggesting that the codon dictionary and the formation of ribosomes occurred simultaneously? If so then what would be the estimated probability of occurrence and how much time would elapse?
3) Also, you referred to a few scenarios for the origins of ribosomes, but has any researcher crunched the numbers to estimate the probability of occurrence and how much time would elapse for a viable ribosome to be made? These calculations should be made with the formation of ribosomes occurring in an uncontrolled environment and without any aid from researchers.
Gracias
Did you read the paper? The root of the tree? I think this will have some of the answers you seek
@@simonmasters3295 What paper are are you referring to?
@@simonmasters3295 all species in one family tree is unsupported by evidence
@@thefox1703 i think the first paper in the description, its titled the root of the tree
I thought this video was 24 minutes long when I first clicked on it, I'm an hour and 20 minutes in and I am not disappointed.
You've got a new sub, followed RR though his channel over, loving this video and will diving into more of your content 🤙
The acknowledgement of the logical error around 46:00 mark is the reason why I love science, rationality, and skepticism.
The existence of this discussion proves that genetic(-related) errors can lead to beneficial mutations.
cute :)
I'm happy you reference the RNA-Peptide World, as well as the work of Williams and Bowman. There's also George Fox, Charles Carter, and Chatterjee. I might do a review video focusing on the arguments against the [strong] RNA world and for an RNA-Peptide World.
What about the argument that our own language was never designed. It evolved.
They did touch on that really quickly. But it is a great topic for discussion in and of itself.
Of course it changed, you and Geoffrey Chaucer do not speak the same lingo. But survival through some biological mechanism? This is foolish. Think again
@@patricksee10
When did I ever imply that language survived through genetics, fool? Think once.
@@cygnusustus part of it probably have - don't know how the current state of research is but people tend to learn languages very fast and effortlessly in their first years so a certain disposition for language might be passed on biologicially. Also that our moth is formed in a way that can produce sounds we need for human languages is a biological fact.
But sure you are right: I guess you mean that a certain language evolved naturally through time and it's use.
@@NeurosenkavalierEmilSinclair
"a certain disposition for language might be passed on biologicially"
A disposition for language is not a language.
'Also that our mouth is formed in a way that can produce sounds we need for human languages is a biological fact."
It's hard to explain how dumb that comment was. A dolphins blowhole is formed in a way that can from sounds dolphins make.
Great video ! I wish you'd gotten more into transfer RNAs, I understand you thought they were an extra complication, but for me realizing the genetic code was implemented in this very simple way - individual RNA molecules that match up to a nucleotide triplet on one end and an amino acid on the other - was transformative for understanding how transcription works, what the genetic code really *is*, how arbitrary it is, how it could evolve, etc. Saying "the ribosome matches them up" and letting the ribosome be a black box about it still makes things seem more mysterious than they are IMO. (or did I in fact misunderstand how simple transfer RNAs are lol)
As a PhD Zoologist that has spent a lifetime studying the current world that has evolved, it is fascinating to look back to where it all started. Chemical evolution is just as real as biological evolution. An early soup full of molecules bumping into each other, with some sticking together because they are more stable, and in the process sequestering smaller molecules, makes those smaller molecules less available thereby setting up competition for them. Voila, you get evolution of increasing complexity. What's so hard to understand about that. This certainly was the most clear-sighted exposition on it. Congrats to both of you. Especially Jon.
This was an awesome convo, I came back and watched it again! Two of my favourite RUclipsrs!! 😁
The problem I have with concepts of language and coding as applied to biochemistry is that they are loaded with the baggage of coders and linguists. I prefer to look on the process as the interaction of structures where their shape and chemical properties determines what the interaction produces. In the end, DNA, RNA and proteins are molecules. molecules that interact in amazing ways to be sure, but there's no intentionality the way there is with coding and language. While I appreciate the usefulness of the metaphor, it gives creos an entry into the discussion where they simply do not belong.
This needs a million views.
The epiphanous ending, that the *quest* for truth *must* triumph over our own dogma of believing that we *have* the truth, is the best part.
It would seem that religions are for the lazy, in that the search for truth is claimed to be found in some book or narrative which circularly claims it is "The Truth"(tm). However, this apparent laziness actually stems from whether a human's innate curiosity is destroyed at a young age or not. And if it isn't, whether the person is comfortable with not knowing about the world, and continues to seek answers about it or surrenders to a belief that says it does have all the answers.
It would seem that Stephen succumbed to some complacency with "knowing" and seemingly began presenting "dogmatism", as evidenced by some "blowback" about his views. It is great to see the consequences of "being slapped" resulted in this excellent exposition of the current knowledge on biochemistry and what is called "life". This was a marvellous collaboration.
Signed with great appreciation, respect and thanks.
Theist here but I guess I was hoping for more delving into the actual origin of the genetic code but you did link some papers. I do think you're vastly oversimplifying what it takes for the code to work. Though you kind of said that.
In addition to t-RNAs, there are the enzymes that add the amino acids to the correct t-RNAs but those are encoded by the DNA, as are the ribosomes and tRNAs. I think Abiogenesis could very well be how life first appeared on this planet. But its really hard to conceptualize how you can go from relatively simple chemicals to something that can sustain itself with metabolism and have genetic material for evolution. Once you have something that can reproduce and evolve, it's pretty obvious how things can work through natural selection.
One thing I vaguely remember in my little bit of reading on this subject is the idea that the codons are actually not arbitrary and the amino acids have some chemical affinity for them. But maybe I am misremembering.
The paper goes into everything you're asking about except for the amino acid assignment question and the origin of replication.
The origin of replication looks to have long predated the ribosome but the replication systems people are playing with right now are either not prebiotically plausible, or don't resemble biology:
RNA system: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32558121/
XNA system: www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21128-0
For you chemical affinity question related to the origin of specific codon assignments, that might have been how amino acids were pulled from the environment early on. To translate that into the Signalling Theory jargon I used in this video: chemical affinity was the cue that was later transformed into a signal: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6584/
The enzymes you're asking about are called "amino acyl tRNA synthetases" (aaRSs). The main paper my video is based on has different classes of aaRSs come in late during ribosome evolution (stages 4 and 6) after partial control of protein synthesis is achieved. www.researchgate.net/publication/341198205_Root_of_the_Tree_The_Significance_Evolution_and_Origins_of_the_Ribosome
Hi, love RR and enjoyed your portion of his video on co-evolution of language. While i intend to watch this, may i suggest a short or 10min version to motivate those with a slight aversion to the length. You also repeat yourself a couple of times right in the beginning which increases that aversion slightly more.
So how far away are we from the ingredients for primordial soup and the cooking instructions?
I have read some things about possible origin of genetic code, along with a lot more of valuable information in a great book by Michael Nikitin, which, unfortunately was published only in Russian, and has never been translated to other languages, as far as I know. But it was one of the best books about scientific discoveries I have read, because it didn't oversimplify things to the level of kindergarten. Unfortunately, many popular books about science from English-speaking authors do that very often in recent times
read, Who wrote the book of life? a history of the genetic code, Lily E Kay, its great
15:30
"[Through an Intelligent design process]...as well"
"mmmm"
the quiet sound of despair in the background when hearing ID is plausible.😂
Even electrons send signals to other electrons to get them to change energy levels. Depending on what frequency signal they interpret will result in different energy levels and effects. In a way, electrons have a language. Exciting isn't it?
Wow. Talk about begging the question!
(24:03) "So, Ham's statement of, "... languages only ever come from intelligence ..." - that's a direct quote - it translates to 'languages, "p," implies an intelligent designer, "q." ' "
(This is so many quotes deep, it's really hard to transcribe, but think I got it.)
Continuing at (24:15)
"Given this, would you agree with me in saying that according to this definition DNA is not one [a language]?"
My question: Why? Because you have already made it one of your premises that DNA does not come from an intelligence? This is classic 'begging the question.' You've decided from the beginning that DNA does not come from an intelligent agent, therefore, since languages only come from intelligences then DNA is not a language.
There is no language and letter are merely representative of the names we gave to 5 nucleobases. These are simply chemicals having natural chemical reactions.
🤦 we know that the elements that make up the organic macromolecules (Proteins, Lipids, Carbohydrates and Nucleic Acid), which are Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, Sulphur and Selenium are found naturally in space.
We know that the organic macromolecules are found naturally in space.
We know that not just the 20 amino acids that compose proteins are found in space, but that over 500 amino acids are found in space.
We know that different protein folds cause a protein to do different things and that proteins fold naturally due to their composition of amino acids.
We know that lipids are naturally hydrophobic and naturally make a sphere when in water, and when fused with a phosphate they naturally make the phospholipid bilayer that is the cell membrane.
@@whatabouttheearth - Who is "we"?
@@rubiks6
Humanity. Humanity has a body of knowledge that has been collected and proven for a fact. I suggest taking a college science class, or at least studying it autodidactically.
@@whatabouttheearth - Why do you suggest that?
Assuming the outcome would harm the research either way, assuming DNA was created, when a creator cannot be found or proven, would be more harmful. But still we should look at DNA from the most unbiased perspective possible.
Loved it! You guys explain so smoothly, thank you for sharing
What a nice video. Rely nice to see how fun Stephen has when he is wrong :)
It is definitely worthwhile watching the entire video!! Very educational and interesting!
Just like science RR is subject to change and improvement to better comport to reality. This is how we know science is right and religion is a fail. Great stuff!
if the universe was just in any way Jon this would have far more views. That was worth a subscription. one comment, I forget the paper, but I read that the genetic code evolved for evolvability, ie: that out of the 10^84 combinations that you mention, it is easiest for mutations to be functional in some form. Am I remembering this right? it certainly seems plausible.
Came over from Rationality Rules, am enchanted as well as intellectually satisfied, new sub
Any good ideas as to how and where intuitive knowledge/information is stored and transmitted?
This collaboration is amazing! Thank you both!
A very big thank you to you guys for doing this..🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
The world needs more of this..
Right at the very beginning of this video, when you first said that DNA had properties of a language. I instantly thought of the molecules that act like a type of “punctuation”, a full stop, within DNA. Does anyone know? Have I got this wrong?
@@things_leftunsaid
Thank you, so those amino acids are acting as the punctuation then?
Dna has properties of language ….
“My substance was not hid from thee, When I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; And in thy book all my members were written, Which in continuance were fashioned, When as yet there was none of them.”
Psalm
Not saying you have to believe anything nor am I implying I have to be right , but just read that paragraph with a non bias and tell me that doesn’t allude to Dna of creation
It’s important in my oppinion to not trash the writings because you hate the author just treat it as fiction
Much love friend stay safe
@@Mellownius
I did read it with an unbiased eye, or I tried to. But it is a massive stretch to read anything about DNA into that passage. I think it would be retrofitting an idea into the writings of someone, that had absolutely no idea about genetics.
@@budd2nd stretching and retrofitting are acceptable in my oppinion .. evolution does as well …
No harm in simply reading and judging the words not the author of the words even if you treat it as fiction … I’ve listened to and read several talks on the connection of dna and that particular psalm and it’s fascinating ..
This is interesting because the brilliant historian of science Lily E Kay wrote a book called "who wrote the book of life?" (which is nothing close to easy reading fyi)
Where she touches on the scriptural metaphors to the "book of life".
She also explains why the genetic 'code' is not a code, or a language or information
Very interesting collaboration. Thank you.
Just watched this! Respect to both of you guys. I watched part of it on his channel! Great video.
I watched the entire video.
John is very intelligent and explained the ideas of linguistics, in orgnsims well. I enjoyed watching.
He agrees that there is language expressed in the genetic code, and admits that the assignment has been "created" a very long time ago.
I do not see that he explained how this "created" assignment need not be the product of an intelligent mind.
Just throwing a wrench in the language bit, but... Doesn't that definition of language overlaps with the definition of communication? Shouldn't language be based on abstract signs, instead of physical ones?
If Paley had come up with a different argument for God instead of the teleological one, we could call it the Paley-ontological argument
If an animal mimics one that is poisonous by having similar colors but is not actually poisonous is that considered coercion ?
Correct!
It's called 'Betesian mimicry'
It's not coercion, it's avoidance
@@whatabouttheearth It seems that Batesian mimicry is the term for that specific form of coercion - as defined in the video. Aggressive mimicry, where a predator or parasite mimics a harmless species, would be the opposite yet also a form of coercion.
@@infinitemonkey917
Mullerian mimicry is also another form of mimicry where animals with aposematic traits are mimicked by others which are a threat, so say a poisonous amphibian mimicks the bright color (aposematic trait) of another poisonous amphibian.
I still don't know if I would define mimicry as coercion, since I'm thinking of coercion as a projective action and not a repellent action. I must of ADDd on that past of the video though, I'll have to re scan it.
premise 1: cheese has holes
premise 2: more cheese, more holes
premise 3: more holes, less cheese
conclusion: more cheese less cheese.
(Don't take this too seriously, just entertaining)
For premise 3 to be true, there would have to be a greater amount of cheese loss per hole than gained from "more cheese". If this is the case then granting premise 2 would make premise 3 false.
More holes > less cheese
Not less cheese (from premise 2)
Therefore not more holes (modus tollens)
That's assuming you mean "less cheese" as a contrary to "more cheese" as the conclusion implies you do. I.e. more total cheese and less total cheese. This is fixed if you use a different definition of "less cheese" such as "more cheese loss from holes".
If by "less cheese" you mean "more cheese *loss* from holes", then it's fine. However the conclusion would then need to be extrapolated as "more cheese, more cheese *loss* from holes" or the conclusion wouldn't follow.
Correction to the correction . . . I think you spelled Carl Woese wrong. ;)
In the case of verbal language, the meaning conveyed by the sound is assigned arbitrarily and intentionally. In the case of signaling though, the meaning is intrinsic, and the response is causal and deterministic. Shouldn't this be considered a substantial difference?
In signaling, the meaning is also completely arbitrary (unless it's an index signal, such as a roar indexing the size of an animal). The arbitrary nature of a signal is clear when you realize how long it took us to decode plant-pollinator signals, or when you see that bacterial cells don't have testosterone receptors (though some have digestive enzymes evolved to bind specifically to testosterone of host animals so they can use the signal molecules as food).
Signal meaning results of co-evolution.
Jon, do you have a video about how signal's work in the brain and in the nervous system?
2:05:06 "the door is open for co-evolution" OK you gave an argument on how proteins could be replicating but what about the ribosome itself? Ribosomes also would need to replicate to evolve into better ribosomes, so does the model say something about it? Maybe I missed it or didn't understand so I would appreciate any information.
The usual unanswered question is how the genetic code was formed?
This is the nearest view.
I have been telling this thing that in quantum physics it could be said that energy exist forever since the law of conservation of energy states that " energy could neither be created nor destroyed it only transform from one to another" in which sense it means energy is there forever. Second thing I have been telling also that consciousness is inherent in nature in the quantum realm as what appeared in the experiment of double slit board where it seem that particles have consciousness in my view. To support that claim Masaru Emoto's experiment shows that water in jars reacted to words spoken the them. Another thing is that air seem to respond to blow more when farmers whistle when they want more air, which led me to conclude that particles at quantum level have inherent consciousness or in totality the universe is conscious.
Considering it collectively energy and consciousness are inherent in nature. With these energy and consciousness it originates species or the caused the formation of the code and also made the galaxies to arranged by themselves.
To add to it, there is no "all powerful and merciful God", thus there are no hell, heaven and rapture which made to control people.
Yeah, but without any repairs or selection pressure, by means of outcomes genes could evolve into any random sequence really, i like to say there are a few layers to this, lets say you look at the dna of a cell of some creature, there are certain things that are so critical to cell function, that a cell will die within one or a few cycles independently of intercellular function m, then there is the over all viability of the creature as an ensemble of tissues, you know a pancreas does not survive on its own, then there are external environmental factors, all of these categories of conditions provide some selective pressure, the first being the most unforgiving and the last being where most of the functional selection takes place. However almost all evolutionary selection of dna is actually in the first category in a certain sense, because of the extensive dna repair that goes on in cells, these are random but most of the sequences of changes you would see over some decent time frame if there was no repair mechanism would be fatal eventually, but we are lucky to only have a few of those flaws stick around and usually in one or two cells per random persistent error usually the cells that develop into a problem for the body as a whole are fixed/destroyed. Therefore the 2nd category has less over all mutations to consider in a sense but creates mire systematic pressure on the evolution of the sequence, and then the environment ofc. Viruses for example do not need as strict error correction because they are filtered at a much faster rate, and reproduce much more easily. But for us with tissues that have to reproduce itself we can’t afford to test new forms of liver cells each time cells split. Therefore organisms based on tissues have had to develop better error correction that more rudimentary things like bacteria and viruses. Of bacteria vary a lot but this is one of the reasons viruses for example can evolve so rapidly, they can afford to trow away a third of new viruses or some large %, and if 1/3 of out liver cells straight up died or stopped functioning correctly we would die pretty fast. Evolution is amazing, but really sit back and think about how many mutations and mistakes are corrected by our body, and how the molecular apparatus of our cells have evolved to slow evolution down just so we can have functional tissues :).
58:57 Why does a wolf-pack leader deliberately leave his/her clan to die in the wilderness when his/their time is up and the whole clan mourns his/her/their loss.
Telepathy? Love? Both?
I like Stephens point, if we reject premise 1 or 2 entirely depends on what is meant by the word "language".
If the theist pack too much into the word 1 then it is true that they need minds, but then dna isn't a language.
If they loosen the word "language" up a bit then it is true that dna is a language but then it isn't true to say that they need minds.
Good listen , thanks for the video
what a crossover
Have subscribed, will now watch/listen to your previous videos. Seriously need to be educated in this area.
Thanks a lot for this to both of you. I learned quite a bit.
15:06 Jon is again speaking metaphorically, but doesn't realize it, when he says that ribosomes read codons.
When biologists say that a ribosome (and tRNA) read mRNA, they don't mean that the ribosome literally reads it: they don’t mean the ribosome pulls out its reading glasses and puts them on its face, then uses its eyes to look through the glasses to clearly see individual alphabetical symbols, that the ribosome's brain then groups into words and sentences, extracting semantic meanings out of them, like the unfolding of a story. Biologists don’t mean “read” literally, but metaphorically. What a ribosome does with mRNA is somewhat, kind-of, sort-of, loosely, a bit like what humans do when they read a book. The word “read” was originally co-opted from another field and used as an explanatory analogy, being used figuratively and metaphorically. Ribosomes "read" in a metaphorical, not a literal, sense. Don’t confuse metaphors with the real things.
The same is true when biologists say that DNA is a code: the word "code" is being used metaphorically, not literally. That is, biologists are not saying that inside a cell the literal symbols of the genetic code - A, C, G, and U - are literally read by a ribosome in groups of 3, and the ribosome then performs a literal lookup in a lookup table - an array or matrix (or other data structures) that maps keys to values - to literally decode the codon into the name, abbreviation, or single-character symbol of the corresponding amino acid. That is not what occurs inside cells: that is what happens at the human level, in our model that we created.
The word "language" in signaling theory is not literal, it is basically a metaphor.
The word "language" has been around for some 800 years, and it meant things such as "words, what is said, conversation, talk", or a particular language (such as English or Arabic). Signaling theory did not begin until around 1973[1] (and for biology, not until around 1975[1]) - some 700 years after the word "language" had been first used and its meanings established. The field of signaling theory borrowed some preexisting words from other fields and used them metaphorically, as explanatory analogies: for example, "language". A "communicate system in signaling theory" is somewhat, kind of, sort of, a bit like a language, if we stretch its meaning, so instead of creating a new technical word from scratch that no one would have any idea what it means, they co-opted an existing word that had, very roughly, a loosely similar meaning. In doing so, signaling theory changed the meanings of those words. In signaling theory, the word "language" does not mean language as it always had, or as the vast majority of people understand the word. Instead, it means what signaling theorists decided to change the word to mean, for their own purposes in their own particular field of study.
To pretend that Creationists mean the signaling theory definition of language, specifically, when they use the word "language" in an argument aimed at the general public, is a disingenuous manipulation of the Creationists' argument. Unless the opponent is grossly misusing a word, you don't get to insist they must mean what YOU want a word to mean, instead of what THEY want it to mean, especially not when your meaning is not what average people understand the word to mean, but theirs is.
[1] “ST [Signaling Theory], which is only a little more than 30 years old, has now become a branch of game theory. In economics it was introduced by Michael Spence in 1973. In biology it took off not so much when Amotz Zahavi first introduced the idea in 1975, but since, in 1990, Alan Grafen proved formally that ‘honest’ signals can be an evolutionarily stable strategy.”
(Signaling theory and its applications. Annuaire de Collège de France (2007-2008). Diego Gambetta)
12:23 You confuse and intermix 2 different things: (a) what occurs inside cells, and (b) the model we humans created at the human level. You do it again at 14:28.
The symbols of the genetic code are the A's, C's, G's, and U's that we humans employ in our model. There are no genetic-code symbols - A's, C's, G's, or U's - inside of cells. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
The same goes for the lookup table you show: that array or matrix (or other form) that maps keys (here, triplets of mRNA) to values (here, abbreviations of amino acids, and stop or start). That lookup table exists at the human level, in the model we created and use. Inside cells, there is no lookup table.
If a human wants to know what amino acid the "codon" GGG "codes for", we perform a lookup in the genetic-code table and find the value Gly in the intersection of the first-letter group of rows for G, the second-letter column for G, and the third-letter row for G. Nothing like that occurs inside of cells. Nothing. Like. That. Occurs. Inside. Of. Cells.
You make a great argument that DNA has language-like properties, but I think we're in danger of equivocating two very distinct systems if we start calling DNA a full-fledged language. If you have a list of things, say, "HTML, Spanish, Solrelsol, ASCII, Proto-Indo-European, and DNA" - while many of these do share some of the same properties, they're clearly not equivalents. While Spanish, Proto-Indo-European and Solrelsol are what we'd call languages, DNA does not seem to fit in the list. However, I don't think it belongs under the HTML/ASCII list either.
We have to be careful with semantic fields across disciplines, or we'll end up like the botanist insisting that tomatoes belong in their fruit salad. In linguistics, languages are social tools. DNA is not a social entity, and it doesn't make much sense to talk about it as a language in the same way we talk about English being a language. A whole boatload of qualities are missing, which for me, disqualifies it, and makes it somewhat unhelpful to refer to DNA as a language, except in a metaphorical sense.
I think the key thing is that DNA does not 'talk', like Koko the gorilla did not actually talk (this video does a marvellous job of explaining why: ruclips.net/video/e7wFotDKEF4/видео.html&ab_channel=SoupEmporium). As an aside, it is pretty sad that we put animals through so much torture and abuse to try to prove they can talk.
I really hate to side with the creationists here, but when it comes to language capability, humans really are a special case. So much so, that Noam Chomsky's UG still posits that there must be a language module in the brain, even though no evidence has been found so far. Still, I don't think DNA and English belong in the same box. The human ability to communicate is so vastly more complex than DNA, it makes as much sense as calling a bicycle a car, just because it shares some of the same features.
Your comments regarding DNA having both signs and syntax makes me wonder though. If syntax could have emerged naturally and is literally a function of our DNA, then perhaps our ability to form complex syntaxes is somehow innate in that sense. I can't see it actually coming FROM our DNA, but DNA seems to set a precedent that our ability to process grammar evolved somehow.
Which paper did you base on your video I would like to read it ?
Links are in the video description.
1:49:09 I think you are talking about the amino acyl trna synthetase which binds to certain trna to transfer the amino acids.
35:34
Regarding watches
"We have zero examples of them arising natually"
That is precisely the point. We also have zero examples of Language arising naturally.
Written language is a human concept as far as we are aware, while communication between social creatures are emerging behaviours in nature. And some of the smaller creatures are capable to some extent, like birds and cats.
6:40 The genetic code is not a literal code, calling it a code is metaphorical.
“The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 led to the next shift in how people understood and talked about genomics. During this phase, *the notion of DNA working as a code became a dominant metaphor* . Today we still often encounter such metaphors in expressions like ‘genetic code’ and the effort to ‘break the code.’ Extending the metaphor, parts of the structure of DNA were often referred to as ‘letters’ and groups of them spelled out ‘words.’”
(Advancing Health Literacy: A Framework for Understanding and Action, Christina Zarcadoolas, Andrew Pleasant, and David S. Greer, John Wiley & Sons, Apr 15, 2009, p 192)
“Yet, as the author points out, these are just metaphors: analogies, not ontologies. Necessary and productive as they have been, they have their epistemological limitations. Deploying analyses of language, cryptology, and information theory, the author persuasively argues that, technically speaking, *the genetic code is not a code* , DNA is not a language, and the genome is not an information system (objections [that were] voiced by experts as early as the 1950s).”
(Stanford University Press, describing the book Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code, by Lily E. Kay, 2000)
“The gene had entered the computer age. According to this metaphor, not only did the genetic code contain information, but this information had a special kind of meaning-it was a program, a set of instructions that enabled the cell to carry out a particular activity. However, it is easy to forget that this is a figure of speech rather than being literally true. A gene is like a program, but it is not a computer program and does not function according to the same rules. Similarly, *the genetic code is not literally a code* -it is a process that enables organisms to carry out particular functions by turning stored information into structures or actions using evolved rules.”
(1953: When Genes Became “Information”, Matthew Cobb, Cell, Volume 153, Issue 3, 25 April 2013, Pages 503-506)
“The metaphor immediately following the introduction of “the genetic code” was constructed as an answer to the question: “In what way is protein synthesis a genetic code?” The answer was: “It translates messages between nucleotides and amino acids.” *The metaphor of the genetic code* became a root-metaphor and expanded from one single metaphor (“protein synthesis is a code”) to an entire network of several interrelated metaphorical expressions."
(Communicating novel and conventional scientific metaphors: a study of the development of the metaphor of genetic code, Susanne Knudsen, Public Understand. Sci. 14 (2005) 373-392)
“This paper examines the role of metaphors in science on the basis of a historical case study. The study explores how *metaphors* of “genetic information,” *“genetic code,”* and scripture representations of heredity (i.e. the metaphorical comparison of DNA with text and alphabet) entered molecular biology and reshaped experimentation during the 1950s and 1960s.”
(Genetic Code, Text, and Scripture: Metaphors and Narration in German Molecular Biology, Christina Brandt (2005), Science in Context, 18, pp 629-648)
The common theistic claim that “language only comes from thinking minds” rarely seems to be properly debunked. No thinking mind “creates” language for itself, it can only “use” the language apparatus that it evolved to have. My ability to talk does not suggest that I “created” my language apparatus (tongue, Broca’s region, larynx, etc.). It also does not imply that an intelligent being cannot then create an analogous set of language apparatuses, as humans obviously have in the form of AI. However, the existence of language in evolved organisms in no way implies “unevolved” design.
I think the way you're using "signal" in the flower and frog examples is actually an analogy. The flowers aren't really signaling that they have nectar, that's just a way that you can (somewhat inaccurately) frame what's happening so you can more intuitively understand the practical upshot of the interaction. The flower that becomes brightly colored when it gets full of nectar isn't doing anything different from what the coercive flower is doing. The only difference is in one case the way the pollinator responds happens to benefit the pollinator and in the other case the way the pollinator responds doesn't benefit the pollinator. You covered that it's signaling if both the sender and receiver benefit from the participating in the communication and that it's coercion if only the sender benefits, but what about if only the receiver benefits? The shape and colors of the gazelle communicates to a lion, "Come eat me if you're hungry," but the gazelle doesn't get anything out of that. I think you're confusing the map for the place.
When it comes to what's happening when you press a key on your keyboard, the sender and receiver are also an analogies. Your keyboard isn't sending a signal for your computer to register that a key has been pressed than your hammer is sending a signal for a nail to drive itself into a piece of wood. The only difference is that you can't see the physical reactions that are taking place.
Nice discussion. Could you please give some examples on languages originates other than mind? Thanks
What do you mean by language? Signalling systems exist in nature without mind in many forms: chemical, for example. That is how microorganisms communicate
@@KateeAngel I was simply asking examples for making the argument strong.
The video was indeed lengthy, but finally I got the answer. Thanks
"Language" only stems from the mind.
I’m about half an hour into this and am finding it fascinating. However, I feel as though right from the start there is a false premise going on that you both seem to have conceded to Ken Ham (etc.). That is the premise that human language was designed by an intelligent “creator.” Yes, human language exists because we have a certain kind of intelligence. But I think most linguists would not concede that human language was ever “designed.” There was never a person or committee of persons who got together and thought about how we will have nouns and verbs and sentences and that these particular sounds will stand for these particular objects, etc. Human language evolved and continues to evolve. In fact, it is quite fascinating to see the parallels between linguistics and genetics in that regard. The only languages that I can think of that were actually designed were written western music and computer languages.
Don't forget Klingon and Esperanto, and thanks for including written western music to support your POV. . You may have misinterpreted the approach here though, since I see it as an attempt to dismantle the fail. I thought the intent was pretty clear but I certainly may be wrong. I'd have to watch it again I suppose to be sure
Music is not designed in the way I read your comment.
Music is created. As for any piece of music to be considered "valuable" by any human being its "bringing it into being" is beyond any rules and syntax by any stretch of the imagination. I specifically exclude any popular music as of "today", as it has more to do with marketing cloud than quality by SE, in case anyone on YT might mistake popularity with "value" (for lack of a better word).
Let me explain. You can know all the rules and syntax of composing music of whichever "kind". And still there is a hidden variable, to the LINEAR THINKING RATIONAL HUMAN MIND, that creates the music that will survive the test of time, i.e. the annual "billboard charts". There is only one Mozart, Beethoven and all the rest. Quite a few I know, that have passed the test beyond MTV etc.pp. as far as I am concerned, but still only a "handful" considering all humanity.
And the linear thinking of the rational human mind and its technology inventions have certainly not contributed to reverse these statistics.
Worth to think about it. That there is more at work than meets the eye of the linear thinking rational human mind.
God, the Old Man with a grey beard should not even pop up as a contestant and if he does there is not much hope for progress, is a pretty good description for the INDESCRIBABLE.
People who are full of themselves, no personal offence here, because they have learned the alphabet and read two or three books don't even bother to read the stuff they are claiming that "they" have proven or disproven, by repeating other people's thoughts that sound convincing to the linear thinking rational human mind.
I find the topic those two individuals discuss quite interesting, I must admit, even though their attitudes a rather off-putting, listening between the "lines".
It says in scripture: "I am who I am." This Source of all existence doesn't need any defence by any of ITS CREATIONS. It simply is what IT IT IS. And everything else is AT ITS SERVICE TO ITS END. And if not it is going to disappear, as "THE EVOLUTIONISTS" rightly claim. So does Scripture! But to know this, one must read it and not only repeat what a prominent advocate of an alternative religion has said.
Every human being stumbles over THE BIG QUESTION in one way or another, but abandoning reason for ideology and truth for half-truths is the motorway to everybody's personal hell by Gods standards. Even though it is going to be a different one than the one of his ancestors.
The current apocalypse should serve as a reminder of it.
Wow, talk about being full of yourself. I was not talking about the totally of musical expression. I was talking very specifically about the written ‘language’ that was created in the west (in a time before recording was possible) to assist musicians in conveying their musical ideas to other musicians, and which allowed those pieces, written In that way, to be preserved through time. Everything you say about music is also true of literature, including drama (which, like music, involves a performer taking the thoughts of a composer through a written page into a performance that will also involve their own personal expression.
Of course the DNA is rightfully seen as a language! Even when language comes from an intelligence it is still just another expression of evolution at work, and when it comes about spontaneously through other natural acts it sometimes generates an entity where it grows to observe itself intellectually as a form of language. It makes perfect sense.
“I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Marvellous are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, When I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; And in thy book all my members were written, Which in continuance were fashioned, When as yet there was none of them.”
Psalm
Dna …. The spoken word or the voice of the creator began all matter as we know it … it’s the only way we know language or have a voice 🤩🤩🤩
Much love friend from Alabama
It is indeed a perplexing dilemma. You have attempted to identify the almighty first cause, seemingly a reference to God. Well I am always dubious in situations where so many details are valued, measured, or described in a purely human perspective. Like all heretofore philosophy and theology. Except maybe for Spinoza. He could have been as close to the truth as anyone has been, but what does that really say? Why does it matter? To my mind all of this is like a song, and biology is like a melodic fluctuation in the myriad and universal music of reality.
@@Mellownius ooooo magic....and with a lisp...cool
@@bokononbokomaru8156 does calling it magic make it more unbelievable and therefore easier for you to process ? I guess you perceive the Bible to be mythology proper ? Just to prove you can be objective read something for me as unbiased as you can please friend ….
“Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.”
Isaiah
Does that imply magic for you or no ?
@@Mellownius it is cool & poetic. I do view it as any other myth (which are all fascinating). But, when you suggest in seriousness that the world was created with a spoken word, then that is indistinguishable from magic until you can at least postulate the mechanism by which this was accomplished. Most deities I have heard suggested are synonymous with magic. If you have convincing evidence such a being exists, please present it (words in an old book are not convincing...no matter how pretty)
1:16:25 Jörmungandr and Ophion bear similar similarities in aspect too. Loki was a hound, though.
11:12 I don't think attacking premise 2 is ever useful because the way you need to attack is to disagree with premise 1. I understand that theists use "language" with baggage, i.e., they mean "language" to imply that it is the result of intelligence and therefore it is technically correct to deny premise 2 in the sense they mean it. However, the justification for being able to deny premise 2 goes via premise 1, so one might as well always attack premise and grant premise 2 to hold (using a reasonable interpretation of "language").
Would it be fair to say that DNA is language like, but that it’s not a language And therefore dismiss the premise? Language, as I understand it, is an arrangement of arbitrary symbols and sounds to represent something for the purpose of communication. DNA, conversely, is the arrangement of specific shapes and chemical signatures of molecules which follow the laws of physics and therefore the shapes are not arbitrary in nature and therefore not a language.
Conversely, if you disagree with that, then can’t you say that Claiming that DNA is a language (in the YEC premise) commits an equivocation fallacy since it is a language only by a different definition?
*Signaling systems have gradient levels* up to language. DNA has several characteristics of a language.
That is a better way to assess it than a binary “Is it a language or not?”
But overall, I agree that premise 1 is even weaker.
Steelmanning is good, but expanding the meaning of a word in an argument that relies on oversimplification does not work well.
Saving this for when I have time to give it full attention
I think that even natural language is not designed by an intelligent mind. Instead, it must have evolved naturally as a communication system between different minds (of the individuals who speak the language). There has never been a drawing board. Only for artificial languages such as Esperanto that is the case. (Note. I posted this after listening for 30 minutes. Now I hear that at about 53:00 Jon is stating almost exactly this point. Apologies.)
How about avoiding the analogy of "code" and instead use the following? Ribosomes are like biological locks requiring 3 (of four different) keys, in order, to link amino acids into chains. DNA /RNA are long (ordered) chains of these keys and serve as templates. The bigger issue is that we don't understand how these chains of "base pairs" were ever able to link in long strands in the first place (the best argument for the hand of God being needed).
🤦 we know that the elements that make up the organic macromolecules (Proteins, Lipids, Carbohydrates and Nucleic Acid), which are Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus, Sulphur and Selenium are found naturally in space.
We know that the organic macromolecules are found naturally in space.
We know that not just the 20 amino acids that compose proteins are found in space, but that over 500 amino acids are found in space.
We know that different protein folds cause a protein to do different things and that proteins fold naturally due to their composition of amino acids.
We know that lipids are naturally hydrophobic and naturally make a sphere when in water, and when fused with a phosphate they naturally make the phospholipid bilayer that is the cell membrane.
You're both amazing.
emergence of communication systems can possibly have deeper meaning than nature behind it because wisdom and knowledge is naturally emergent
1:19:56
Point 2. is circular reasoning as the life forms themselves are based on an Communication System DNA-RIBOSOME-PROTEIN. And thus the codes and signals are not natural occurring, rather biological.
Also if you consider the ID argument as it's *best* defined - for a Conscious Entity and not Mind: *Communication systems are exclusive to conscious entities*
And this is the kicker: consciousness is considered to be on a continuum - starting with 0 for rocks, to ~0.0001 for e-Coli to ~0.1 for plants, all the way to ~1 for humans.
The distribution of Codons to AA/IAs is statistically normal.
At one point you say that to call something 'new functional information' it has to be useful to the organism. This is false. The word 'functional' does NOT mean 'beneficial'. It means it has some effect. That effect can be negative. The function can be negative. Functional information is information that is expressed. Even a gene that cause the death of the organism has performed a function and is functional information.
HEAR ME OUT - Every one got the meaning of the words wrong.There is LANGUAGE, SIGNAL AND CODE. 1.Language is a product of mind bcos in language words have no meaning of their own and are assigned meaning by mind. The meaning of words can be changed and there is no breaking of code or physics. Like when we decided to have a different meaning for words example gay, everyone who said i am a gay person would stop to do so bcos the meaning has changed but the communication goes on. Language also can be taken back, say that was not what you thought it was 2.Signals on other hand can be given by mind or code. Bacteria being a living code rather than a mind. Signals cant be taken back but visual signals can be taken back, smell , electrical etc cant be taken back. It kinda exist in grey area bcos signal is broad word also signal have breaking changes ie you cant replace killing signal(like lion attacking first to show which one to attack to lioness and cubs) for peace without breaking laws of physics. 3. Code is extemly code breaking and will break every thing thats holding together if you switch meaning.( Code here doesn't mean programming language which are called that for obvious reasons) . Like algorithm is code you cant switch diff with integration without breaking everything that produces the reults) . Codes cant be taken back. If meaning of one molecule in dna is switched for other everything that makes it physicaly possible for it to exist breaks.
15:15 "according to these rules, this Genetic code here - this chart here, the fact that we have symbols here, that are not just dictated by physics, they're actually dictated by the evolved structure of the Ribosome and tRNA. These things had to be assigned through an evolutionary process, or *I suppose they could have been assigned through an intelligent design process as well* but there had to be an assignment that happened - of these symbols to the aminoacid that they represent." - Jon Perry
I got about 2/3 of the way in and stopped, mostly because I find discussions of the arbitrary and abstract to be pretty tedious.
However, you seemed to indicate that codons are arbitrarily associated with the proteins that are expressed; which is something I hadn’t considered before. In biology, is it as important to discuss it’s seemingly arbitrary nature as it is it’s evident contingent nature? The syntax and meaning of a language are arbitrary only if you examine it in a particularly abstract way. To me, the contingent aspects of biology, and language, are more interesting and pertinent.
If I remember correctly, somewhere after 01:41:24 we talk about the gradual establishment of codon assignments and how it changes selection pressure on genes to align. Maybe that's what you're after? But that section is where we dive into the nature of the genetic code specifically.
Only religious weirdos use the word "contingent."
@@emailvonsour unnecessary
This was brilliant, thank you both!
Thanks for this fascinating discussion.
I'm not sure how this refutes intelligent design (or why people have their mind set towards that goal, or vice versa) but fascinating nonetheless.
It doesn't. the examples of how code and Communication Systems occurred naturally are of Conscious Entities (life forms) that are also based on a code and Communication System: DNA-RIBOSOME-PROTEIN.
Good information about that and admitting the language/code aspect of DNA.
Here is Richard Lewontin - a biologist, so your old schtick of "biologists know better" is again shot down. Here he is writing a review of Kay's book in the journal Science, which you might have heard of. He agrees with Kay that DNA is not a language (or a code), and that "language" is used metaphorically when referring to DNA.
“The ways in which the metaphors of biology have molded the concepts and experiments of the science have been a preoccupation of the historian of molecular biology Lily Kay. In Who Wrote the Book of Life? her most recent and unfortunately final book (she died of cancer in December), Kay asks how the view that DNA is "information" that is "written" in a "language" whose "words" are in "code" has driven the research program and claims of molecular biology.
…
This, then, raises the problem of the counter-factual conditional that plagues all attempts to understand history: What if? What would have happened had the language metaphor never taken hold in molecular genetics? Would we now be ignorant of the details of the relation between DNA and protein? Would we have a different understanding? Would we know more about the world? or less?
…
A good deal of discussion in the book is devoted to showing why the metaphors of "code," "language," and "information" can be so misleading if taken as isomorphic with the phenomena of molecular genetics. This is especially a problem if these nonbiological notions are taken in their modern analytic and scientific contexts. If "information" is the information of Shannon-Weaver information measures; if "language" is what Jakobson, Chomsky, and other linguists take it to be; if "code" is what the Enigma machine was meant to create; then as Kay so clearly shows, we are badly misled by applying these measures to DNA. But, as she says, "code," "language," and "information" are themselves metaphors, terms appropriated by science and technology and given special content for special purposes.”
(R. C. Lewontin, In the Beginning Was the Word, Science, Volume 291, Number 5507, Issue of 16 Feb 2001, pp. 1263-1264)
Excellent, thank you.
Clear explanation🙏thank u
reason
Your distinction between a code and a language was not carefully made. You correctly described the genetic code by using the chart showing the codon assignments to amino acids. What I expected, from the title of the video, was an explanation of how that chart originated, i.e. how the assignments were originally made. Of course there is a complex story to be told about how DNA and the ribosome relate in terms of language, the organism, and the unfolding of life and all its complexity, and that story can largely be explained by processes of natural selection. But the origin of the genetic code is a different matter.
As you pointed out, in terms of complexity, the genetic code is closer to Morse Code, with its 40 or so assignments than it is to, say, English with its 100,000 or so assignments. The Morse Code assignments, like the genetic code, can fit on one page. And, if we asked about the origin of the Morse Code, we learn that the assignments came out of Sam Morse's head. The assignments were arbitrary, but he made some deliberate assignments, such as using three symbols for each of the letters SOS, and in assigning the fewest number of dots and dashes to the most frequently used letters. But once he had decided on the assignments he had to do three things to make the system usable: 1. He wrote the assignments down on a sheet of paper. 2. He had to get an agreement among the telegraph operators to use his code in their communications, and 3. He had to provide each and every telegraph operator a copy of the code sheet.
Those same three things must be done in biology in order for the genetic code to be useful in the protein synthesis process. So let's identify how those three things happen in biology.
1. If we look into the cell trying to find the codebook, we don't find one. We find that instead of a single "sheet" with all the assignments, like your chart, we find the equivalent of millions of sliced-up copies of the sheet with each slice, or strip, containing just a single assignment. Using the Morse Code example, there would be many strips containing a dash followed by a dot and the assigned letter 'N', and many more such strips each containing just one assignment. In biology, those strips are charged tRNA molecules. That is, a tRNA molecule that has a permanently attached codon at one end (equivalent to the dash and dot) and an actual amino acid molecule of the correct assignment temporarily bound to the other end. When this tRNA molecule is picked up by the ribosome, that amino acid is removed from the tRNA and appended to the growing chain of the protein being built. That discharges the "empty" tRNA molecule back into the soup, ejected like a shell casing after the bullet has been fired. Next is the hard part: recharging the molecule with another correct amino acid. That is where the aminoacyl tRNA synthetases come into play. Once the tRNA is re-charged, it is sent back into the soup to be picked up by a ribosome and re-used. So, the codebook we are looking for is this huge population of charged tRNA molecules floating around in the soup.
2. Getting agreement to use the code among all ribosomes in all cells in all organisms in all species is easy. Normal biological reproduction and development processes simply replicate all the macromolecules involved and pass them along via normal mitosis and meiosis.
3. But passing the codebook to progeny isn't done by replicating a bunch of charged tRNA molecules. Instead, the information in the codebook is carried in the genome and replicated when the genome itself is replicated. The codebook appears in the genome as at least 61 separate and distinct sequences of codons on the genome. To produce a molecule of tRNA, the genome splits open along a sequence, and one half fills back up with nucleotides and is then peeled away and let loose. Then it folds up into the 3D tRNA molecule to form an uncharged molecule. Then an enzyme called aminoacyl tRNA synthetase attaches the correct amino acid (the one that matches the codon in the middle of the tRNA strip) to form a charged tRNA molecule ready for action in a ribosome. The initial origin of those 61 sequences and the sequences required to make all those synthetase molecules, in the DNA is the real mystery. How did they first get established?
For more of my opinions on this matter, see paulandellen.com/essays/essay180.htm