Category: Comment O’ The Day

The Article is very long and technically involved. I still strongly suggest you “Read The Whole Thing™” as it gives a basis for one of the main problems with Darwinian evolution  i.e. “Irreducible Complexity”

Comment O’ The Day
Davide “Tanner” Taini
So the genetic code has a bootstrap problem identical to compiler theory. The aaRS enzymes are the compiler that translates DNA into proteins, but they’re themselves proteins, compiled from DNA by the very system they implement. Dennis Ritchie solved the C compiler bootstrap by sitting down and hand-writing the first version in assembly on a PDP-11. Someone had to intervene from outside the system to start the loop.

Except in biology, that someone also had to design the hardware, the instruction set, the memory architecture, the power supply, the chassis, and make sure the whole thing was self-hosting from the first clock cycle. Ritchie only had to write the compiler. God apparently handled the full stack, and shipped it without a single patch note!

BLUF
the code and the machinery that reads it had to arrive simultaneously and completely. The literature dances around this without landing on it.

So the short answer to your question is: the literature confirms the co-organization of code and decoder machinery, names it as symbolic rather than chemical, and identifies the second base as its organizational anchor — but does not draw the conclusion that this makes unguided origin not just improbable but logically incoherent.

The DNA Code was Designed; the Decoder is the Code
“The code and its decoder had to arrive simultaneously and completely functional.”

First a synopsis, then the Claude Sonnet conversation that got us here. This is tentative.

The standard codon wheel, RNA version. The radial symmetry graphic of the 4³ codon table requested below.

Code and Decoder as a Single System

The standard codon wheel — the diagram found in every genetics textbook — organizes the code around the first base. In that orientation, the second-base symmetry TES identifies is effectively invisible. It has been hiding in plain sight for seventy years simply because the field adopted the wrong organizing axis early and never changed it.

When the charts are examined directly, the second-base blocks map cleanly onto amino acid physicochemical properties: the C block contains the smallest, simplest amino acids; the T block is dominated by hydrophobics; the A block handles the polar and charged amino acids. This is not incidental. Peer-reviewed work by Carter and Wolfenden confirms that the acceptor stem of tRNA independently encodes amino acid size, while the anticodon encodes polarity — the same two properties that track with the nucleon count progression that The Ethical Skeptic (TES) identifies. Carter explicitly describes the result as “a symbolic mapping,” comparing it to Morse code. The second base, he notes, is the most organizationally conservative position in the entire code.

What the literature does not do is follow this to its logical conclusion. Carter frames the self-referential relationship between code and decoding machinery as a “reflexivity” that enabled evolution. What it actually describes is a closed loop with no entry point for an unguided process: the aaRS enzymes that implement the code are proteins, produced by reading DNA through the code that those same enzymes implement. The code and its decoder had to arrive simultaneously and completely functional. Neither has any meaning without the other.

This is not merely improbable. It is logically incoherent as an unguided event.

Continue reading “”

Lauren Chen

I just figured out why the Minnesota ICE death is bothering me so much.

This liberal woman was willing to take on federal agents, to disrupt ICE operations, in order to protect criminal Somalis.

Obviously, she probably didn’t imagine she would be killed. But surely, she must have known that, at the very least, she could be arrested.

She has three kids. So she was willing to be separated from her kids to protect criminal Somalis.

Speaking as a mother, this is insanity. This is not rational thinking.

What it is, instead, is the result of liberal brainrot that convinces progressive women they have more of a duty to nurture and protect poor, brown (criminal!) strangers than their own country, and hell, even their own children.

I am praying for this woman’s soul and for her family. But I mean it when I say this type of thinking is almost wholly responsible for the decline of Western civilization.

“The individual is nothing; the collective is everything.”
– Stalin

“The interests of the individual must be subordinated to the interests of the collective.”
– Mao

“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
– Mussolini

“We’ll replace rugged individualism with collectivism.”
– Mamdani

Don’t be afraid to call out objective evil when you hear it.
– Tommy Robinson

IN REPLY:

@ShamashAran

I’m a black woman who pretends to be a catgirl on the internet. I enjoy sci-fi novels and I fix cars for enjoyment. None of that tells you a damn thing about the usefulness of MY stance of gun control. Just like you being a gun owner, a veteran, or married to a crime victim tells nobody anything about whether a proposed law is constitutional, effective, or even coherent.

Personal biography is not policy analysis. It’s just vibes in a dress uniform. In your case, I’ll bet the medals are on backwards. Gun control is a nice idea. So is banning drugs. So is banning murder. The problem isn’t intention, it’s reality. Laws don’t operate in a vacuum where only good people follow them and bad people politely comply. They operate in the real world, where criminals route around restrictions the way water routes around rocks. Felons and domestic abusers are already prohibited from owning firearms.

The “Charleston loophole” rhetoric pretends this isn’t true, as if violent criminals are currently wandering into gun stores, twirling mustaches, and lawfully purchasing rifles because a stopwatch hit zero. That isn’t how crime works, and it isn’t how criminals acquire guns. (HINT: They steal them, generally)

What these laws ACTUALLY do is expand discretionary denial and delay for people who are already legal, already vetted, and already compliant. They turn a right into a permission slip that expires if the government is slow, incompetent, or simply hostile. If the state can block a right by failing to act, that right no longer exists. It’s a favor. You can believe gun control should work. (Many people do.) The thing is, belief isn’t evidence. Your credentials aren’t arguments. If the policy fails in practice, pointing at your life story doesn’t make it succeed.

Comment O’ The Day
The irony of a jew calling for disarmament of people in the light of an Islamic attack on a Jewish holiday against a people who were defenseless because they were disarmed by their politicians.

So Australia has an ISIS cell in Sydney that they don’t seem to know what to do with. They had a licensed gun-owner affiliated with that cell who wasn’t seen as a threat. They had the police respond at first like Keystone Kops to terror-shooting target at legally disarmed Jews…
…and the solution, of course, is more gun laws.
-Stephen Green

Comment O’ The Day
Retracted for inaccuracies in the base data and flaws in the methods of calculations. But, listen to the experts!

 

Retraction Note: The economic commitment of climate change
Maximilian Kotz, Anders Levermann & Leonie Wenz
Nature (2025)

The Original Article was published on 17 April 2024

The authors have retracted this paper for the following reasons: post-publication, the results were found to be sensitive to the removal of one country, Uzbekistan, where inaccuracies were noted in the underlying economic data for the period 1995–1999. Furthermore, spatial auto-correlation was argued to be relevant for the uncertainty ranges.

Continue reading “”

This is part of the anti-American legacy of President Auto-Pen

She actually said:
“replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything…”
Anything she ever says again should be ignored forever.

Yes, but this statement is even more dangerous:
“these issues should not be in presidential control”
She is placing the bureaucracy above the constitution.

Acts 17:21
For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.

Every Democrat that opens their mouth and says a single thing about free speech needs to watch a video montage of themselves being complete and total hypocrites.
I would like to point out that the last person in that montage is a sitting United States Supreme Court justice, who does not understand that the first amendment is supposed to hamstring the government from restricting the free speech rights of American citizens. – Insurrection Barbie