A life form is a reproducible system of irreproducible parts. Fact.

Rock,

I don't think that's what you meant to say. In any case, it's not true.

Bradford, life forms are not composed of self-replicating molecules. A life form is composition (system) of non-self-replicating molecules. A life form is a reproducible system of irreproducible parts. Fact.

You're right Rock. You're one of the more knowledgeable commenters at TT and I value your input. You also have a subtle sense of humor which I did not initially recognize.

Hypothesis: A "code," "plan," "program," a "design" is required to construct such a system; transforming a collection of irreproducible parts into a reproducible system.

Every one of your critics, Bradford, recognizes the fact. They assume it.

Carefully observe what your critics have to say.

Anyway, Bradford, you've got to "Delinearize your Thimking!" You have that part where DNA is "decoded" (transcription-translation) into RNA and protein, but you missed that part where RNA and protein "encode" DNA (reverse transcription-translation). That's a critical part of the error-correcting repertoire, Bradford.

I'm aware of this Rock. My emphasis is on causes rather than mechanisms because I'm aware that once some find a possible mechanism they can assume causality. Reverse transcription does not solve any of the mysteries inherent in an extra-cellular (or intracellular) chemical trail to error correction.

The feeling's mutual, I assure you. Don't let it bother ya. I don't. LOL

I think some of your comments reveal a deeply analytical mindset"¦.

Nah. I'm just BSing, Bradford. Brainstorming. Entertaining my idle mind with interesting puzzles.

You're wrong about me. But you are a creationist and therefore wrong about everything. LOL

Anyway, Bradford, you've got to "Delinearize your Thimking!" You have that part where DNA is "decoded" (transcription-translation) into RNA and protein, but you missed that part where RNA and protein "encode" DNA (reverse transcription-translation). That's a critical part of the error-correcting repertoire, Bradford. You have the basic concept of feedback control, error-correction, and all that fantastic error-correcting machinery of the cell, but you haven't fit it into a system. A system the evident object of which is to generate adaptive variation. (In part by "DNA self-catalysis.")

The widely discussed alternative, Bradford, is that information is encoded into DNA by a "scientific miracle"! By a highly improbable confluence of unintended events. Or what most of us call an "Accident." LOL

I don't see the produstion of RNA and protein from DNA as anything other than an intermediary step in the process.

(And I incorrectly attributed the misleading diagrams to communications theorists, when it is obviously the "systems-thing-to-do." But the mathematicians taught us how to do it, so I blame them. Better yet, I blame the critics! LOL)

Now yer thinkin' like a design theorist!

I hope this was not in response to me. Because if that is the case, then 'design theorists' are in bigger trouble than I thought.

The clues are right in front of our eyes. I'm going to be very, very busy for the time being, so I will have to cut back significantly on this blog. But I'll devote the 51st installment of my web page to following up those clues and try to get it up by the end of the month.

Darn. Patience is required?

Since you're the chemistry expert why don't you at least give us a clue as to a chemical pathway suggested by a codon bias.

Why so evasive? This is your chance to be the creative genius behind some novel OOL hypotheses.

BTW, I'm no chemistry expert at all. I took some obligatory biochemistry, organic chemistry and physical chemistry courses that all biology students take. Unfortunately, most of it I've forgotten already.

Bradford: How would a correlation lead to an assignment of causality?

Untangling causation can often be difficult. That's why, absent a complete understanding, scientists often couch their words with "suggests" or "consistent with" or "strengthens the argument". Generally, the stronger the correlation, the stronger the evidence of some causal link. Continued testing of various aspects of the hypothesis, using different methodologies, can help provide that confidence as well as a greater understanding of the phenomena in question. For example, support for the Theory of Evolution includes evidence from such diverse areas as geology and genetics.