but its progress.
Study finds textbook version needs revision
(You can say that again.)
"Despite awe-inspiring diversity, nearly every lifeform—from bacteria to blue whales—shares the same genetic code. How and when this code came about has been the subject of much scientific controversy."
(Because its not a scientific endeavor.)
"Taking a fresh approach to an old problem, Sawsan Wehbi...discovered strong evidence that the textbook version of how the universal genetic code evolved needs revision."
(Codes don't evolve so yeah new approach needed.)
"The genetic code is an amazing system in which sequences of three nucleotides, known as codons, in a string of DNA or RNA are translated..."
(The information needs translating does it?
Interesting.)
"into protein sequences using 20 different amino acids," said Joanna Masel, the paper's senior author and a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the U of A. "It's a mind-bogglingly complicated process, and our code is surprisingly good. It's nearly optimal for a whole bunch of things,
(Well no kidding.)
"and it must have evolved in stages."
(Not if it didn't evolve it didn't HAVE to.
DOGMA YO.
Nothing can violate the Dogma
of this faith based system
or you get kicked out of the club.
No more books and lectures for you!)
"Finally, the team discovered that
today's genetic code
likely came
after other codes
that have since gone extinct."
(Well how convenient.
Where did the other codes come from then?
What created them?
How did they get imbedded into cells?
They have answered exactly nothing.
Information.
(Let alone 8 billion character codes)
simply does not create itself.
17 Quantum fields
(Ref QFT)
don't just randomly decide together
to create life.
This is complicated?
Where is the difficult part?)
"The authors argue that the current understanding of how the code evolved is flawed because it relies on misleading laboratory experiments rather than evolutionary evidence."
(The understanding of how it evolved is flawed
because they are making an erroneous assumption that it did!
There's no evidence of the genetic code evolving.
"today's genetic code
likely came after
other codes
that have since gone extinct"
That doesn't answer anything
about how any of it
(Genetic Code)
came into existence
or where it came from
or how it embedded into cells.
Faulty premises
never yield
truthful conclusions.
Ever.
"Not everything a scientist says is scientific."
Professor John Lennox
Epically these days.)
"For example, one of the cornerstones of conventional views of genetic code evolution
(The central dogma to this faith-based belief system.
Believing in something you know you cant prove
=
FAITH.)
rests on the famous Urey-Miller experiment of 1952, which attempted to simulate the conditions on early Earth
(They cant even tell you what that was like
with any reasonable degree of certainty.)
"that likely witnessed the origin of life."
(They cant tell you with certainty what the conditions were like
on an early Earth,
then they go on to QUALIFY the next step.
"likely witnessed")
"While valuable in demonstrating that nonliving matter could give rise to life's building blocks, including amino acids, through simple chemical reactions,
(Molecular Biologist have conceded:
Chemical reactions do not produce enough amounts of NEW information
to generate NEW lifeforms.)
"the experiment's implications have been called into question."
(Rightfully so.)
"For example, it did not yield any amino acids containing sulfur, despite the element being abundant on early Earth. As a result, sulfuric amino acids are believed to have joined the code much later.
(Nothing is explaining where it came from to start with, let alone
how it evolved.
And I got:
"today's genetic code likely came after other codes"
attempted to simulate the conditions on early Earth
(That they don't even know with certainty what they were like.)
that likely witnessed the origin of life.
to support the fact that the concept of Genetic Codes evolving
is a faith-based believe system.
As the events over the Eastern Seaboard
(N.J. UAP, not even gonna call them drones)
are proving?
NOT EVERYTHING
HAS A PHYSICAL/MATERIAL
EXPLANATION.
(Maybe these guys should try and explain that huh?
"However, the result is hardly surprising, considering that sulfur was omitted from the experiment's ingredients."
"According to co-author Dante Lauretta, Regents Professor of Planetary Science and Cosmochemistry
(Not a Molecular Biologist.
Ever wonder why all these people purposing this nonsense aren't
Molecular Biologist?
ILL TELL YOU WHY THAT IS.
Because the Evolutionary Molecular Biologist
KNOW
just how hard it is to get life on this planet
and these types:
"Professor of Planetary Science and Cosmochemistry"
just do not have that same understanding.
PERIOD.
I dont go to a plumber to get a beard trim.
(My barber rocks BTW)
Likewise I don't trust professors of
"Planetary Science and Cosmochemistry"
to explain life's origins.
You never hear of Molecular Biologist getting excited about exoplanets, possibilities of life elsewhere etc, because they know and understand just how difficult it is to get life here
(so small of a chance such as to be considered a miracle)
let alone anywhere else.)
at the U of A Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, early life's sulfur-rich nature offers insights for astrobiology, particularly in understanding the potential habitability and biosignatures of extraterrestrial environments.
"On worlds like Mars, Enceladus and Europa, where sulfur compounds are prevalent, this could inform our search for life by highlighting analogous biogeochemical cycles or microbial metabolisms," he said. "Such insights might refine what we look for in biosignatures, aiding the detection of lifeforms that thrive in sulfur-rich or analogous chemistries beyond Earth."
(To believe that life can exist anywhere else
is to believe that it happened here by accident.
17 Quantum fields don't conspire to act randomly
(conspiring to act together negates randomness)
to create life.
8 billion character codes
(or any other information for that matter)
does not create itself.
NOWHERE IN THIS PIECE IS THE PROBLEM OF
WHERE DID THE GENETIC CODE COME FROM?
WHAT CREATED IT?
OR HOW DID IT GET IN THE CELL?
Ever Addressed.
Evolution explains what happens to things once they already exist.
NOT THEIR ORIGINS.
Not to mention that
ALL AVIALABLE EVIDENCE
points to just how unique our earth,
our solar system
and even our galaxy are.
Real science is based on observation.
So why are they choosing to ignore all the avaiable evidence that points to us being here being unique?
Because it violates the central Dogma
of their faith-based believe system:
Anything but God.
Where exactly did what I am saying get complicated?)
"The team used a new method to analyze sequences of amino across the tree of life, all the way back to the last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, a hypothesized population of organisms that lived around 4 billion years ago and represents the shared ancestor of all life on Earth today.
(They talk about it like it is just set in stone already:
LUCA.
Rarely is it ever mentioned that they are a:
"hypothesized population of organisms"
"Unlike previous studies, which used full-length protein sequences, Wehbi and her group focused on protein domains, shorter stretches of amino acids.
(Well whooptie shit
who cares besides them?
Amino acids dont generate 8 billion character codes.
Never forget this:
You have to have:
RNA, DNA and?
The proteins
all together at the same time in order to get any of it to ever work.
Its a continuum.
Just like time, space, energy and matter, all have to exist at the same time, they are all INTERDEPENDANT
on each other.
So what is the likelihood that:
DNA, RNA and the proteins
all
"EVOLVED"
together simultaneously as they would have had to?
Small enough to be considered,
you guessed it
a miracle.)
"To get a handle on when a specific amino acid likely was recruited into the genetic code,
(By what exactly?
It just decide on its own?
Or?
What recruited it?
Pretty much your two options there.)
"the researchers used statistical data analysis tools"
(Oh you mean the ones they
or like minded individuals created?
Interesting.)
to compare the enrichment of each individual amino acid in protein sequences
dating back to LUCA,
(Oh you mean those organism which
you can not even prove existed?
LUCA is a hypothesis.
It's not even a theory.
A theory has multiple streams of evidence
pointing in its direction)
and even farther back in time.
(That they cant even tell you with any reasonable degree of certainty it was like.
Whole conjecture is nonsense.
CODES DONT WRITE THEMSELVES.
If these people are so smart?
Why cant they admit that to themselves?
Because it violates the central dogma of their faith:
ANYTHING BUT GOD.
Fuckin knuckledragging idiots.
Militant Church example BTW)
"An amino acid that shows up preferentially in ancient sequences
was likely incorporated early on."
(How many qualifiers you gotta see
before you just admit the truth to yourself
that this is all a bunch of hooey
that you been force-fed
by the Satanically controlled world system?
Hum?
If you wanna base your energy
that gives you your mass?
If you wanna base its final resting place
(Energy, It can not be destroyed)
on this kind of crap?
You just go right ahead.
"The team identified more than 400 families of sequences dating back to LUCA.
(Hypostasized, not proven.)
More than 100 of them originated even earlier and had already diversified prior to LUCA. These turned out to contain more amino acids with aromatic ring structures, like tryptophan and tyrosine, despite these amino acids being late additions to our code.
(Earlier it said "maybe" being late additions to our code. Now its certain all the sudden?See that kinda shit a lot, a lot.)
"This gives hints about other genetic codes that came before ours, and which have since disappeared in the abyss of geologic time," Masel said.
None of any of this explains:
What created the genetic code?
(Any of them.)
Where did it come from?
and
How did it get imbedded in the cell?
None of those three subjects are even touched.
So try again.
Lets review shall we?
"sequences...
in string of DNA or RNA
are translated..."
(The fact that the
nucleotides, known as codons
needs translating,
tells you they did not evolve.)
"it must have
evolved in stages."
(Information doesn't evolve.
It is assembled by an intellect.
Wrong premises never yield
truthful conclusions.
Guy needs to take
Logic 101.)
"today's genetic code
likely came
after other codes
that have since gone extinct."
(Qualify things much do ya?)
"the current understanding
of how the code evolved is flawed"
(Because these nitwits cant admit to themselves
information doesn't evolve.
Only an intellect can piece it together.)
"attempted to simulate the conditions on early Earth"
(They don't have a fuckin clue what it was like. And the ones who are reasonable will tell you, "we really just don't know.")
"that likely witnessed the origin of life."
(Qualify much?)
"the experiment's implications
have been called into question."
(Ref:
"They don't have a fuckin clue what it was like. And the ones who are reasonable will tell you, "we really just don't know.")
"nonliving matter could give rise to life's building blocks, including amino acids, through simple chemical reactions"
(Lifes building blocks aint life.
Needs the most important part:
Information.)
"sulfuric amino acids are believed
to have joined the code much later."
(Qualify much?)
"particularly in understanding
the potential habitability"
(Qualified yet again.)
"this could inform our search for life."
(Qualified yet again.)
"or LUCA, a hypothesized population of organisms"
(Qualified yet again.)
"when a specific amino acid likely was recruited into the genetic code,"
(Qualified yet again.)
"was likely incorporated early on"
(Recruited, incorporated,
watever
your words not mine
still:
Qualified yet again:)
I got:
"likely came"
"attempted to simulate"
"likely witnessed"
"are believed to have joined"
"the potential habitability"
"could inform"
"a hypothesized population of organisms"
"likely incorporated"
"likely was recruited"
None of which even begins
to try to to explain:
WHERE
DID THE GENETIC CODE
COME FROM?
WHAT CREATED IT?
OR
HOW DID IT GET IN THE CELL?
And they get mad
if you call it
a faith Based belief system?
is being proven to you
over the skies of New Jersey
right now people.
No comments:
Post a Comment