Scientific hypotheses make empirical predictions

[Biosemiosis.org]

And what he documented at the output could not be derived from the input, even in principle.

Benkirk: You’re very mistaken there.

Nirenberg tagged the amino acids, introduced a known input, and documented the output. He demonstrated the relationship of poly-U to phenylalanine. By no other means would we know the genetic code.

This is intentional deception on your part. Like I said earlier, you don’t need me around for that.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Biosemiosis.org

When someone defends their position by suggesting that universal experience is disallowed in science, that person is not practicing science.[/quote]
None of the things you listed are experiential. We know those things because real scientists constructed hypotheses that made empirical predictions. Then they and others tested those hypotheses empirically. They did as much or more working as talking.

You are not practicing anything resembling science. You are rejecting the most fundamental scientific method. You’re not even bothering to test your hypotheses against the existing literature.

[quote]The insults and pedantic referencing of the scientific method is icing on the cake.[/quote]I don’t see it as pedantic given your lack of understanding.

Show me…

Again, it’s not my job to show you anything. It’s up to YOU to test YOUR hypothesis. I’m sorry if this seems pedantic, but you just don’t seem to grasp it.

[quote]Empirical science isn’t the issue, Ben. You just don’t want the observations to be made.

I’m pointing out that observations have been made that you are ignoring.

Again, your hypothesis:

@Biosemiosis.org

that the constraints of a reading-frame code (Crick) are necessary to proper translation, (example: initiation at a specific location, direction of reading, and stop functions are necessary for proper translation).

If stop functions are NECESSARY as stated in the hypothesis, a SINGLE exception is sufficient to falsify the hypothesis, correct?

It took me literally 30 seconds to find the relevant empirical literature.

@Biosemiosis.org

Because the function of protein is assumed to be independent of its length, the system now does not operate in one of the ways it is presented to, and it can probably now be safely assumed that the other physical requirements of the system are unnecessary as well.

Not at all. If something you claim to be necessary really isn’t, it tells us a lot about how it likely evolved and was not designed.

[benkirk (Benjamin Kirk)]

@Biosemiosis.org

Nirenberg tagged the amino acids, introduced a known input, and documented the output. He demonstrated the relationship of poly-U to phenylalanine. By no other means would we know the genetic code.

This is intentional deception on your part. Like I said earlier, you don’t need me around for that.

There’s no deception. Try to state Nirenberg’s work as he saw it: a brilliant example of multiple hypothesis testing (most of which were falsified), one huge step in a long, iterative process. And the output is simply empirical, cpm in experimental vs. control. They baked everything in before they knew the results.

Where are your empirical predictions?

[Biosemiosis.org]

More deception.

You are deceiving yourself Ben. I provided 9 observables in a test, and you were only able to attack one of those, and in that one instance you were forced to make a massively unwarranted assumption which no biologist in the world would make (i.e. since xyz protein can survive stop codon anomaly, the living cell does not need to control protein length). And after multiple corrections on this point, you persist with the deception, as you wrap yourself in the flag of science. You had an intellectual choice of addressing the issue in earnest, or continuing with your deception for rhetorical purposes. You failed to make the right choice.