cellular intelligence (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, July 17, 2017, 08:46 (365 days ago)

Dhw (under “big brain”): If your God can create cells that seem to be intelligent, I suspect that he can create cells that actually are intelligent. You keep telling us that nobody can possibly judge from the outside...and so we are back to your dogmatic assertions that you just happen to know the truth.
DAVID: If you would study some cellular biology you would see all the automaticity.

Of course there is automaticity. But according to Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Bühler and others there is also intelligence. And they (have) spent a lifetime studying cellular biology.


David’s comment: (under “extracellular matrix”:) This scientist notes the automaticity of controls (note my bold) in cells from multicellular organisms. I am convinced bacteria are no different, except Shapiro's discovery that bacteria have extra controls over their DNA, since everything is in one cell
David’s comment (under “stem cells”): this research applies to stem cells which can turn into many different functioning cells. In view of that, I don't think the result is surprising, but it shows how much control the genome has over itself. Certainly looks designed and not by chance. The ability may go as far back as bacteria as shown in Shapiro's work demonstrating bacteria can modify their own DNA.

The fact that some cells can change their function and bacteria can modify their own DNA offers increasing support for the idea that cell communities themselves may provide the driving force behind evolutionary change. Their versatility and self-control may be the result of design, but that certainly doesn’t mean that they are automatic. Let me repeat that my hypothesis relates to the origin of innovations. Once these are established, they will function automatically until confronted with new challenges or opportunities.

cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Monday, July 17, 2017, 19:04 (364 days ago) @ dhw

Dhw (under “big brain”): If your God can create cells that seem to be intelligent, I suspect that he can create cells that actually are intelligent. You keep telling us that nobody can possibly judge from the outside...and so we are back to your dogmatic assertions that you just happen to know the truth.
DAVID: If you would study some cellular biology you would see all the automaticity.

dhw: Of course there is automaticity. But according to Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Bühler and others there is also intelligence. And they (have) spent a lifetime studying cellular biology.

Your usual response. The genome runs the cells intelligently because of the intelligent information implanted.

David’s comment: (under “extracellular matrix”:) This scientist notes the automaticity of controls (note my bold) in cells from multicellular organisms. I am convinced bacteria are no different, except Shapiro's discovery that bacteria have extra controls over their DNA, since everything is in one cell
David’s comment (under “stem cells”): this research applies to stem cells which can turn into many different functioning cells. In view of that, I don't think the result is surprising, but it shows how much control the genome has over itself. Certainly looks designed and not by chance. The ability may go as far back as bacteria as shown in Shapiro's work demonstrating bacteria can modify their own DNA.

dhw: The fact that some cells can change their function and bacteria can modify their own DNA offers increasing support for the idea that cell communities themselves may provide the driving force behind evolutionary change. Their versatility and self-control may be the result of design, but that certainly doesn’t mean that they are automatic. Let me repeat that my hypothesis relates to the origin of innovations. Once these are established, they will function automatically until confronted with new challenges or opportunities.

And it is my view that the origin of life is a gift. All of this discussion has to be seamless, although you delight in excluding origin of life. The only reason bacteria can do some adaptions is that they were created to have that ability. They did not develop it on their own.

cellular intelligence

by dhw, Tuesday, July 18, 2017, 08:36 (364 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw (under “big brain”): If your God can create cells that seem to be intelligent, I suspect that he can create cells that actually are intelligent. You keep telling us that nobody can possibly judge from the outside...and so we are back to your dogmatic assertions that you just happen to know the truth.

DAVID: If you would study some cellular biology you would see all the automaticity.

dhw: Of course there is automaticity. But according to Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Bühler and others there is also intelligence. And they (have) spent a lifetime studying cellular biology.
DAVID: Your usual response. The genome runs the cells intelligently because of the intelligent information implanted.

Your usual response: I must ignore those experts who disagree with you.

dhw: The fact that some cells can change their function and bacteria can modify their own DNA offers increasing support for the idea that cell communities themselves may provide the driving force behind evolutionary change. Their versatility and self-control may be the result of design, but that certainly doesn’t mean that they are automatic. Let me repeat that my hypothesis relates to the origin of innovations. Once these are established, they will function automatically until confronted with new challenges or opportunities.

DAVID: And it is my view that the origin of life is a gift. All of this discussion has to be seamless, although you delight in excluding origin of life. The only reason bacteria can do some adaptions is that they were created to have that ability. They did not develop it on their own.

I have never ignored the origin of life, but neither you nor I nor anyone else knows it, which is why I constantly repeat that cellular intelligence may have been invented by your God. You simply refuse to consider the possibility that a (perhaps God-given) cellular intelligence might exist, because of your “large organisms chauvinism” (Shapiro).

cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 01:27 (363 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: And it is my view that the origin of life is a gift. All of this discussion has to be seamless, although you delight in excluding origin of life. The only reason bacteria can do some adaptions is that they were created to have that ability. They did not develop it on their own.

dhw: I have never ignored the origin of life, but neither you nor I nor anyone else knows it, which is why I constantly repeat that cellular intelligence may have been invented by your God. You simply refuse to consider the possibility that a (perhaps God-given) cellular intelligence might exist, because of your “large organisms chauvinism” (Shapiro).

What you have ignored is the necessary continuity from origin of life to the existing organisms we study. If cells are intelligent, where did the original intelligence in the first cells come from? You quietly drop in a suggestion about 'God-given', but after that the only other possibility is a rocky earth somehow invented living matter and gave it intelligence at the same time. You think God is a fairy tale, I think your hypothesis is all fairy tale..

cellular intelligence

by dhw, Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 08:34 (363 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: And it is my view that the origin of life is a gift. All of this discussion has to be seamless, although you delight in excluding origin of life. The only reason bacteria can do some adaptions is that they were created to have that ability. They did not develop it on their own.

dhw: I have never ignored the origin of life, but neither you nor I nor anyone else knows it, which is why I constantly repeat that cellular intelligence may have been invented by your God. You simply refuse to consider the possibility that a (perhaps God-given) cellular intelligence might exist, because of your “large organisms chauvinism” (Shapiro).

DAVID: What you have ignored is the necessary continuity from origin of life to the existing organisms we study. If cells are intelligent, where did the original intelligence in the first cells come from? You quietly drop in a suggestion about 'God-given', but after that the only other possibility is a rocky earth somehow invented living matter and gave it intelligence at the same time. You think God is a fairy tale, I think your hypothesis is all fairy tale.

How can you say I ignore it when I offer the possibility that God is the originator? (No, I do not think God is a fairy tale. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.) The other two possibilities are sheer chance or the panpsychist hypothesis I have spent so much time describing, but none of these hypotheses are sufficiently convincing for me to believe in them, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic. The problem of origin does not in any way justify your refusal to accept the possibility of cellular intelligence, but it does provide a convenient diversion from your “large organisms chauvinism”!

cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 19, 2017, 19:26 (362 days ago) @ dhw

i]


DAVID: What you have ignored is the necessary continuity from origin of life to the existing organisms we study. If cells are intelligent, where did the original intelligence in the first cells come from? You quietly drop in a suggestion about 'God-given', but after that the only other possibility is a rocky earth somehow invented living matter and gave it intelligence at the same time. You think God is a fairy tale, I think your hypothesis is all fairy tale.

dhw: How can you say I ignore it when I offer the possibility that God is the originator? (No, I do not think God is a fairy tale. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.) The other two possibilities are sheer chance or the panpsychist hypothesis I have spent so much time describing, but none of these hypotheses are sufficiently convincing for me to believe in them, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic. The problem of origin does not in any way justify your refusal to accept the possibility of cellular intelligence, but it does provide a convenient diversion from your “large organisms chauvinism”!

You have again skipped over the continuum of intelligence point I make. The very first cells had to have intelligent information in order to function. That information cannot originate from a rocky inorganic Earth. The appearance of intelligent activity by bacteria or the cells of a multicellular organism must recognize that origin.

cellular intelligence

by dhw, Thursday, July 20, 2017, 11:40 (361 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you have ignored is the necessary continuity from origin of life to the existing organisms we study. If cells are intelligent, where did the original intelligence in the first cells come from? You quietly drop in a suggestion about 'God-given', but after that the only other possibility is a rocky earth somehow invented living matter and gave it intelligence at the same time. You think God is a fairy tale, I think your hypothesis is all fairy tale.

dhw: How can you say I ignore it when I offer the possibility that God is the originator? (No, I do not think God is a fairy tale. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.) The other two possibilities are sheer chance or the panpsychist hypothesis I have spent so much time describing, but none of these hypotheses are sufficiently convincing for me to believe in them, which is one reason why I remain an agnostic. The problem of origin does not in any way justify your refusal to accept the possibility of cellular intelligence, but it does provide a convenient diversion from your “large organisms chauvinism”!

DAVID: You have again skipped over the continuum of intelligence point I make. The very first cells had to have intelligent information in order to function. That information cannot originate from a rocky inorganic Earth. The appearance of intelligent activity by bacteria or the cells of a multicellular organism must recognize that origin.

I hereby do solemnly declare that I recognize the fact that if cellular intelligence exists (it is a hypothesis), just like life itself it must have had an origin. I also hereby declare that nobody knows the origin of life or of cellular intelligence. And I also hereby declare that a god of some kind is one possible origin, that sheer chance is another possible origin, that some kind of panpsychic evolution is another possible origin, and that I can’t believe in any of these possible origins. And I finally hereby declare that my total ignorance of the origin of cellular intelligence (like that of life) does not mean that cellular intelligence (or life) does not exist.

cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 20, 2017, 16:57 (361 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: You have again skipped over the continuum of intelligence point I make. The very first cells had to have intelligent information in order to function. That information cannot originate from a rocky inorganic Earth. The appearance of intelligent activity by bacteria or the cells of a multicellular organism must recognize that origin.

dhw: I hereby do solemnly declare that I recognize the fact that if cellular intelligence exists (it is a hypothesis), just like life itself it must have had an origin. I also hereby declare that nobody knows the origin of life or of cellular intelligence. And I also hereby declare that a god of some kind is one possible origin, that sheer chance is another possible origin, that some kind of panpsychic evolution is another possible origin, and that I can’t believe in any of these possible origins. And I finally hereby declare that my total ignorance of the origin of cellular intelligence (like that of life) does not mean that cellular intelligence (or life) does not exist.

You have again dismissed or skipped over the presence of intelligent information needed to have life appear.

cellular intelligence

by dhw, Friday, July 21, 2017, 11:35 (360 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have again skipped over the continuum of intelligence point I make. The very first cells had to have intelligent information in order to function. That information cannot originate from a rocky inorganic Earth. The appearance of intelligent activity by bacteria or the cells of a multicellular organism must recognize that origin.

dhw: I hereby do solemnly declare that I recognize the fact that if cellular intelligence exists (it is a hypothesis), just like life itself it must have had an origin. I also hereby declare that nobody knows the origin of life or of cellular intelligence. And I also hereby declare that a god of some kind is one possible origin, that sheer chance is another possible origin, that some kind of panpsychic evolution is another possible origin, and that I can’t believe in any of these possible origins. And I finally hereby declare that my total ignorance of the origin of cellular intelligence (like that of life) does not mean that cellular intelligence (or life) does not exist.

DAVID: You have again dismissed or skipped over the presence of intelligent information needed to have life appear.

I define information as facts relating to a specific subject. I do not believe that information is intelligent, or is capable of achieving anything at all until it is USED.*** The information needed (and the manner in which it has been used) to have life and cellular intelligence appear may be the product of intelligence, may be the product of chance, or may be the product of some kind of panpsychic evolution, as stated above. Meanwhile, you have again dismissed or skipped over the fact that not knowing the origin of cellular intelligence (like that of life) does not mean that cellular intelligence (or life) does not exist.

*** QUOTE under “Information; applied to matter creates life”:
Information itself has no material properties, it has no weight, it has no power to do anything. But when combined with enabling material technology, there are no limits to its power."

Precisely.

cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Friday, July 21, 2017, 19:42 (360 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have again dismissed or skipped over the presence of intelligent information needed to have life appear.

dhw: I define information as facts relating to a specific subject. I do not believe that information is intelligent, or is capable of achieving anything at all until it is USED.*** The information needed (and the manner in which it has been used) to have life and cellular intelligence appear may be the product of intelligence, may be the product of chance, or may be the product of some kind of panpsychic evolution, as stated above. Meanwhile, you have again dismissed or skipped over the fact that not knowing the origin of cellular intelligence (like that of life) does not mean that cellular intelligence (or life) does not exist.

I disagree. Information can be intelligent prior to it being used, but the intelligence behind it is demonstrated when it is used. Cellular intelligence is implanted as intelligent information.


*** QUOTE under “Information; applied to matter creates life”:
Information itself has no material properties, it has no weight, it has no power to do anything. But when combined with enabling material technology, there are no limits to its power."

dhw: Precisely.

Agreed.

cellular intelligence

by dhw, Saturday, July 22, 2017, 10:20 (359 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have again dismissed or skipped over the presence of intelligent information needed to have life appear.

dhw: I define information as facts relating to a specific subject. I do not believe that information is intelligent, or is capable of achieving anything at all until it is USED.*** The information needed (and the manner in which it has been used) to have life and cellular intelligence appear may be the product of intelligence, may be the product of chance, or may be the product of some kind of panpsychic evolution, as stated above. Meanwhile, you have again dismissed or skipped over the fact that not knowing the origin of cellular intelligence (like that of life) does not mean that cellular intelligence (or life) does not exist.

DAVID: I disagree. Information can be intelligent prior to it being used, but the intelligence behind it is demonstrated when it is used. Cellular intelligence is implanted as intelligent information.

One meaning of “intelligence” is information, e.g. about the activities of foreign governments. So intelligent information would presumably mean informative information, which is a tautology. The other meaning of “intelligence” is the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. I do not believe that information has the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. It is the creator of information or the user of information that has that ability. However, I am delighted to hear that you now believe there is such a thing as cellular intelligence (i.e. cells have the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc.) and it is indeed possible that it has been implanted, or that it arose by chance, or that it is the product of some form of panpsychism.

*** QUOTE under “Information; applied to matter creates life”:

Information itself has no material properties, it has no weight, it has no power to do anything. But when combined with enabling material technology, there are no limits to its power."
dhw: Precisely.
DAVID: Agreed.

So the intelligence comes from whoever/whatever uses the information, or applies the “material technology”, e.g. ants using information about their own bodies, buoyancy, balance, the environment etc. to build their ant-rafts and ant-towers, or cells using information about the environment and about their own capacity for material cooperation and self-organization in order to adapt or innovate.

cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 22, 2017, 15:14 (359 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I do not believe that information has the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. It is the creator of information or the user of information that has that ability. However, I am delighted to hear that you now believe there is such a thing as cellular intelligence (i.e. cells have the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc.) and it is indeed possible that it has been implanted, or that it arose by chance, or that it is the product of some form of panpsychism.

I believe there is implanted cellular intelligent information that cells have the ability to act upon, nothing more.


*** QUOTE under “Information; applied to matter creates life”:

Information itself has no material properties, it has no weight, it has no power to do anything. But when combined with enabling material technology, there are no limits to its power."
dhw: Precisely.
DAVID: Agreed.

dhw: So the intelligence comes from whoever/whatever uses the information, or applies the “material technology”, e.g. ants using information about their own bodies, buoyancy, balance, the environment etc. to build their ant-rafts and ant-towers, or cells using information about the environment and about their own capacity for material cooperation and self-organization in order to adapt or innovate.

The intelligence in the information appears when the information is used by the cell.

cellular intelligence

by dhw, Sunday, July 23, 2017, 09:32 (359 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not believe that information has the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. It is the creator of information or the user of information that has that ability. However, I am delighted to hear that you now believe there is such a thing as cellular intelligence (i.e. cells have the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc.) and it is indeed possible that it has been implanted, or that it arose by chance, or that it is the product of some form of panpsychism.

DAVID: I believe there is implanted cellular intelligent information that cells have the ability to act upon, nothing more.

Once more, I do not believe that information has the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. (= my definition of intelligence). I define information as the facts related to a particular subject, and I propose that cells have the intelligence to act upon information within themselves (their own capabilities) and from outside themselves (their environment). If you disagree, please give us your own definitions of intelligence and of information.

*** QUOTE under “Information; applied to matter creates life”:
“Information itself has no material properties, it has no weight, it has no power to do anything. But when combined with enabling material technology, there are no limits to its power."

dhw: Precisely.
DAVID: Agreed.

dhw: So the intelligence comes from whoever/whatever uses the information, or applies the “material technology”, e.g. ants using information about their own bodies, buoyancy, balance, the environment etc. to build their ant-rafts and ant-towers, or cells using information about the environment and about their own capacity for material cooperation and self-organization in order to adapt or innovate.

DAVID: The intelligence in the information appears when the information is used by the cell.

Again, we need your definitions of both terms. I propose that the usefulness of the information appears when it used by the intelligence of the cell.

cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 23, 2017, 22:47 (358 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: Once more, I do not believe that information has the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. (= my definition of intelligence). I define information as the facts related to a particular subject, and I propose that cells have the intelligence to act upon information within themselves (their own capabilities) and from outside themselves (their environment). If you disagree, please give us your own definitions of intelligence and of information.

DAVID: The intelligence in the information appears when the information is used by the cell.

dhw: Again, we need your definitions of both terms. I propose that the usefulness of the information appears when it used by the intelligence of the cell.

Information can include instructions for plans of action. The builder acts upon the architectural plans and his workmen automatically construct. In this way a cell reads instructions I(information) and its parts automatically produce the required protein products.

cellular intelligence

by dhw, Monday, July 24, 2017, 13:31 (357 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Once more, I do not believe that information has the ability to learn, understand, make decisions etc. (= my definition of intelligence). I define information as the facts related to a particular subject, and I propose that cells have the intelligence to act upon information within themselves (their own capabilities) and from outside themselves (their environment). If you disagree, please give us your own definitions of intelligence and of information.

DAVID: The intelligence in the information appears when the information is used by the cell.

dhw: Again, we need your definitions of both terms. I propose that the usefulness of the information appears when it used by the intelligence of the cell.

DAVID: Information can include instructions for plans of action. The builder acts upon the architectural plans and his workmen automatically construct. In this way a cell reads instructions I(information) and its parts automatically produce the required protein products.

Your analogy simply repeats your own belief that intelligent cellular behaviour means God issuing instructions or providing the plans, and cells automatically obeying them (I think most builders and workers would object to being called automatons!). But that is the whole point at issue. I am proposing that cells work out their own “plans”/ “instructions”, using information (i.e. known facts) about themselves and their environment, and I see the sentient, cognitive, communicative, cooperative, decision-making processes required for design and the implementation of design as attributes of intelligence. Perhaps for the sake of clarification you would now give us your own definitions of information and intelligence.

cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Monday, July 24, 2017, 16:15 (357 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: Information can include instructions for plans of action. The builder acts upon the architectural plans and his workmen automatically construct. In this way a cell reads instructions I(information) and its parts automatically produce the required protein products.

dhw: Your analogy simply repeats your own belief that intelligent cellular behaviour means God issuing instructions or providing the plans, and cells automatically obeying them (I think most builders and workers would object to being called automatons!). But that is the whole point at issue. I am proposing that cells work out their own “plans”/ “instructions”, using information (i.e. known facts) about themselves and their environment, and I see the sentient, cognitive, communicative, cooperative, decision-making processes required for design and the implementation of design as attributes of intelligence. Perhaps for the sake of clarification you would now give us your own definitions of information and intelligence.

I don't think I can be any clearer than my previous statements. Information implanted in cells are plans for conducting active living processes and the instructions for action. Information in the cell allows it to follow the genome's layers of codes and conduct its living actions. The appearance of 'cellular intelligence' is our interpretation of the resulting cellular actions we observe.

cellular intelligence

by dhw, Tuesday, July 25, 2017, 13:25 (356 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Information can include instructions for plans of action. The builder acts upon the architectural plans and his workmen automatically construct. In this way a cell reads instructions I(information) and its parts automatically produce the required protein products.

dhw: Your analogy simply repeats your own belief that intelligent cellular behaviour means God issuing instructions or providing the plans, and cells automatically obeying them (I think most builders and workers would object to being called automatons!). But that is the whole point at issue. I am proposing that cells work out their own “plans”/ “instructions”, using information (i.e. known facts) about themselves and their environment, and I see the sentient, cognitive, communicative, cooperative, decision-making processes required for design and the implementation of design as attributes of intelligence. Perhaps for the sake of clarification you would now give us your own definitions of information and intelligence.

DAVID: I don't think I can be any clearer than my previous statements. Information implanted in cells are plans for conducting active living processes and the instructions for action. Information in the cell allows it to follow the genome's layers of codes and conduct its living actions. The appearance of 'cellular intelligence' is our interpretation of the resulting cellular actions we observe.

Since you don't want to define the two terms, let’s forget all this stuff about “intelligent information” and stick to the basics, which are perfectly clear. Cells/cell communities act intelligently. You believe they are robots following God’s instructions. I propose that they have an autonomous intelligence of their own (possibly designed by your God). Both versions are “our interpretation”, and neither of us can prove the other wrong.

cellular intelligence

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 25, 2017, 18:27 (356 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: Since you don't want to define the two terms, let’s forget all this stuff about “intelligent information” and stick to the basics, which are perfectly clear. Cells/cell communities act intelligently. You believe they are robots following God’s instructions. I propose that they have an autonomous intelligence of their own (possibly designed by your God). Both versions are “our interpretation”, and neither of us can prove the other wrong.

I think we both use the terms 'information' and 'intelligence' in the same way. I don't know what other definitions you need. Since we both stick to our own interpretations of what cells do, with no middle ground, and I think there is none, lets stop this thread here.

cellular intelligence; where information is hidden

by David Turell @, Monday, April 02, 2018, 20:19 (105 days ago) @ David Turell

This study shows the shape of the organic molecule carries information in its shape by a chemist who creates decoy shapes. Organic carbon chemistry carries the ability to create an endless number of 3-D shapes and this is most like so much information can be transmitted to allow the complexities of single cells and of course the cells in multicellular animals:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180402110736.htm

"Not only can synthetic molecules mimic the structures of their biological models, they can also take on their functions and may even successfully compete with them, as an artificial DNA sequence designed by Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet (LMU) in Munich chemist Ivan Huc now shows.

"Chemist Ivan Huc finds the inspiration for his work in the molecular principles that underlie biological systems. As the leader of a research group devoted to biomimetic supramolecular chemistry, he creates 'unnatural' molecules with defined, predetermined shapes that closely resemble the major biological polymers, proteins and DNA, found in cells. The backbones of these molecules are referred to as 'foldamers' because, like origami patterns, they adopt predictable shapes and can be easily modified in various ways. ... Huc has now succeeded in synthesizing a helical molecule that mimics surface features of the DNA double helix so closely that bona fide DNA-binding proteins interact with it.

***

"The new study shows that the synthetic compound is capable of inhibiting the activities of several DNA-processing enzymes, including the 'integrase' used by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) to insert its genome into that of its host cell.

***

"'As always in biology, shape determines function," he explains. In the new study, he introduces a synthetic molecule which folds into a helical structure that mimics surface features of the DNA double helix, and whose precise shape can be altered in a modular fashion by the attachment of various substituents. This enables the experimenter to imitate in detail the shape of natural DNA double helix, in particular the position of negative charges. The imitation is so convincing that it acts as a decoy for two DNA-binding enzymes, including the HIV integrase, which readily bind to it and are essentially inactivated. (my bold)

"However, the crucial question is whether or not the foldamer can effectively compete for the enzymes in the presence of their normal DNA substrate. "If the enzymes still bind to the foldamer under competitive conditions, then the mimic must be a better binder than the natural DNA itself," Huc says. And indeed, the study demonstrates that the HIV integrase binds more strongly to the foldamer than to natural DNA. "Furthermore, although initially designed to resemble DNA, the foldamer owes its most useful and valuable properties to the features that differentiate it from DNA," Huc points out."

Comment. Note my bold. It is very obvious that shape carries information. Each molecule in a series of molecular reactions tells the next molecule how to act. And as a result millions of molecules of different shape transmit the information that causes life to exist. This also explains why organic chemistry is so complex when compared to inorganic chemistry. The presence of organic chemistry on Earth is a result of the fact that life exists here. In my view the appearance of life from an inorganic Earth cannot be explained by the presence of a few organic chemicals lying around. It requires the exact shapes of each type of molecule to transmit meaningful actions. How can one doubt God's creation when this is understood? We are learning God's tricks, Look at the website to see the illustration of the decoy and what it copies.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum