tas8831
Well-Known Member
What is the genetic code?
Seems a simple enough question, and one that a person presenting him or herself as able and informed enough to argue against evolution using genetics should be able to answer without hesitation. After all, if I were going to argue against the historicity of Jesus, who would have confidence in my position if I were to describe Him as having blue skin and standing 50 feet high? And if I continued writing about this blue, 50 foot tall Jesus despite many explaining to me that I was quite wrong? Well, I would hope you would consider me uninformed and a troll,
And yet.... one can peruse many threads on this forum - some are active now - in which creationists make claims and arguments about genetics that make it pretty clear that they think the Genetic Code is something other than it really is. This despite, in many cases, being told and provided with links and explanations as to what 'the genetic code' actually is.
One need only put 'genetic code' in your search bar - it is pretty easy! Just did it:
For more detail, we can look at the page of the National Human Genome Research Institute - they would know, right?
Bolding mine.
Not that hard, right? The illustration they use at the NHGRI:
That ^^^ is the genetic code.
And yet, we see creationists use it in very.... non-standard ways. To avoid being accused of 'call outs' and such, I will provide no links and use no names, but if you think I am being unfair or dishonest, you can always use the forum search tool.
A few examples:
"Although we do observe elements of adapation [sic] and natural selection in flipping the switches on already existing genetic codes - we never see the creation of new genetic code that would allow one kind of animal to turn into another kind."
"the genetic code drives the makeup of the body, not the mind.
there isn't a genetic code for consciousness"
"Does our genetic code change over the course of our lives?"
" The introduction of new functional genetic code information into an organism rather than merely toggling the switches of the genetic code that is already there."
"You still have not given any arguments to support your claim that any of the things you listed (polyploidy, horizontal gene transfer, plasmids, VNTRs, endogenous retroviruses,) could be used to explain how the new genetic code required for reptilian style scales could be introduced by random chance into a cat and result in replacing their fur."
"Adaptation is using the information already in the genetic codes to express changes in an organism.
Evolution is the introduction of new information, new code, that allows for doing something that the organisms previous genetic code did not have the ability to express through epigenetic adaptation."
Lots, lots more. But that is a nice sampling.
Seems like creationists conflate the actual "genetic code" with an organism's genes, or genome. Or something. This is among the many reasons it is hard to have real discussions with creationists - they conflate concepts/mis-define concepts/employ idiosyncratic definitions and expect others to use their fake ones/etc.
But hopefully they will learn,
I doubt it, but hopefully...
*As an aside, while searching for additional examples, I came across a LOT of creationist plagiarism. So much that I stopped keeping track.... sad... Even sadder is that it seems many creationists get their information - including the mis-defining of "genetic code" - from banana-man Ray Comfort...
Seems a simple enough question, and one that a person presenting him or herself as able and informed enough to argue against evolution using genetics should be able to answer without hesitation. After all, if I were going to argue against the historicity of Jesus, who would have confidence in my position if I were to describe Him as having blue skin and standing 50 feet high? And if I continued writing about this blue, 50 foot tall Jesus despite many explaining to me that I was quite wrong? Well, I would hope you would consider me uninformed and a troll,
And yet.... one can peruse many threads on this forum - some are active now - in which creationists make claims and arguments about genetics that make it pretty clear that they think the Genetic Code is something other than it really is. This despite, in many cases, being told and provided with links and explanations as to what 'the genetic code' actually is.
One need only put 'genetic code' in your search bar - it is pretty easy! Just did it:
For more detail, we can look at the page of the National Human Genome Research Institute - they would know, right?
The instructions in a gene that tell the cell how to make a specific protein. A, C, G, and T are the "letters" of the DNA code; they stand for the chemicals adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T), respectively, that make up the nucleotide bases of DNA. Each gene's code combines the four chemicals in various ways to spell out three-letter "words" that specify which amino acid is needed at every step in making a protein.
Bolding mine.
Not that hard, right? The illustration they use at the NHGRI:
That ^^^ is the genetic code.
And yet, we see creationists use it in very.... non-standard ways. To avoid being accused of 'call outs' and such, I will provide no links and use no names, but if you think I am being unfair or dishonest, you can always use the forum search tool.
A few examples:
"Although we do observe elements of adapation [sic] and natural selection in flipping the switches on already existing genetic codes - we never see the creation of new genetic code that would allow one kind of animal to turn into another kind."
"the genetic code drives the makeup of the body, not the mind.
there isn't a genetic code for consciousness"
"Does our genetic code change over the course of our lives?"
" The introduction of new functional genetic code information into an organism rather than merely toggling the switches of the genetic code that is already there."
"You still have not given any arguments to support your claim that any of the things you listed (polyploidy, horizontal gene transfer, plasmids, VNTRs, endogenous retroviruses,) could be used to explain how the new genetic code required for reptilian style scales could be introduced by random chance into a cat and result in replacing their fur."
"Adaptation is using the information already in the genetic codes to express changes in an organism.
Evolution is the introduction of new information, new code, that allows for doing something that the organisms previous genetic code did not have the ability to express through epigenetic adaptation."
Lots, lots more. But that is a nice sampling.
Seems like creationists conflate the actual "genetic code" with an organism's genes, or genome. Or something. This is among the many reasons it is hard to have real discussions with creationists - they conflate concepts/mis-define concepts/employ idiosyncratic definitions and expect others to use their fake ones/etc.
But hopefully they will learn,
I doubt it, but hopefully...
*As an aside, while searching for additional examples, I came across a LOT of creationist plagiarism. So much that I stopped keeping track.... sad... Even sadder is that it seems many creationists get their information - including the mis-defining of "genetic code" - from banana-man Ray Comfort...
Last edited: