1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    18 Jul '08 14:39
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm

    Showing how early forms of RNA could replicate the activity of genes before genes were around but still being life forms.
  2. Joined
    03 Oct '05
    Moves
    86698
    18 Jul '08 15:18
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm

    Showing how early forms of RNA could replicate the activity of genes before genes were around but still being life forms.
    What puzzles me more than anything is why is the genetic code universal? One would think that benificial mutations changing the code would have occurred. Yet, it has remained unchanged bewteen species.
  3. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    18 Jul '08 15:551 edit
    Originally posted by znsho
    What puzzles me more than anything is why is the genetic code universal? One would think that benificial mutations changing the code would have occurred. Yet, it has remained unchanged bewteen species.
    I think that’s a good question and one that I have been puzzling over.

    Actually, if you count viruses as “life” (many people wouldn’t) then the genetic code DNA is almost but not quite universal because although some viruses are classed as “DNA viruses” meaning that they carry DNA but other viruses are classed as “RNA viruses” meaning that they only carry RNA and no DNA! -but that would be the only exception to that rule.

    There are actually good reasons to believe that DNA is not the most perfect molecule for life to use to store genetic information! For a start, it is easily damaged by the presence of oxygen unless there are enzymes present that constantly repair that damage as quickly as it occurs. But the first life formed in anaerobic conditions and so this wouldn’t have been a problem for the first life.

    But, given the fact that DNA is far from being the perfect substance for life to use in our oxygen rich environment, this begs the question of why evolution didn’t make it evolve into a more suitable substance? I think this is just another example of “evolution’s blunders” but also of evolution just making the best of a bad job (by, for example, evolving enzymes that constantly repair damage to DNA as quickly as it occurs). But I also have formed the theory that although evolution is good at rearranging things that it has already created, what evolution finds extremely hard to do is change the basic chemical building blocks of life once they have formed. So once the basic chemical building blocks of life have formed (such as DNA bases and amino acids etc) then, whether they have a good design or not, life is just stuck with them and if they are not ideal then that is just tuff.
  4. At the Revolution
    Joined
    15 Sep '07
    Moves
    5073
    19 Jul '08 19:12
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717140459.htm

    Showing how early forms of RNA could replicate the activity of genes before genes were around but still being life forms.
    Excellent. Another complete Creationist fabrication for the list. I'll keep this in mind when posting my atheist posts in Spirituality.

    If any of that sounded sarcastic, it wasn't.
  5. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    19 Jul '08 19:151 edit
    Originally posted by znsho
    What puzzles me more than anything is why is the genetic code universal? One would think that benificial mutations changing the code would have occurred. Yet, it has remained unchanged bewteen species.
    Universal in what way? There have been many mutations over the years.

    Here's a creationist analysis which claims the code is not universal. I don't know if his facts are right; I certainly don't agree with his conclusion.

    http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/6562/evolution/trnasml.html

    Wikipedia says mitochondria use a different code from the rest of us. That's right; we have little bits in us that reproduce independently of our main DNA, using a different genetic code.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#Variations_to_the_standard_genetic_code
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    19 Jul '08 19:17
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    I think that’s a good question and one that I have been puzzling over.

    Actually, if you count viruses as “life” (many people wouldn’t) then the genetic code DNA is almost but not quite universal because although some viruses are classed as “DNA viruses” meaning that they carry DNA but other viruses are classed as “RNA viruses” meaning that they o ...[text shortened]... od design or not, life is just stuck with them and if they are not ideal then that is just tuff.
    But, given the fact that DNA is far from being the perfect substance for life to use in our oxygen rich environment, this begs the question of why evolution didn’t make it evolve into a more suitable substance?

    How do you know there is a more suitable substance? What is it?
  7. Joined
    03 Oct '05
    Moves
    86698
    19 Jul '08 23:59
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    [b]But, given the fact that DNA is far from being the perfect substance for life to use in our oxygen rich environment, this begs the question of why evolution didn’t make it evolve into a more suitable substance?

    How do you know there is a more suitable substance? What is it?[/b]
    My question seems to have been misunderstood by some. What I mean is, the Gentic Code in terms of the same triplets code for the same amino acids acroos species. Agreed, there are some exceptions such as mitochondrial DNA and some yeasts. BUT, that code we find in nearly every biochem textbook is, to all intents and purposes, applicable to all species. Why? Why did the gentic code not diversify during the billions of years of evolution?
  8. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    20 Jul '08 00:49
    Originally posted by znsho
    My question seems to have been misunderstood by some. What I mean is, the Gentic Code in terms of the same triplets code for the same amino acids acroos species. Agreed, there are some exceptions such as mitochondrial DNA and some yeasts. BUT, that code we find in nearly every biochem textbook is, to all intents and purposes, applicable to all species. Why? Why did the gentic code not diversify during the billions of years of evolution?
    It did. But there's still some heritage from back then too.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Jul '08 02:481 edit
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    I think that’s a good question and one that I have been puzzling over.

    Actually, if you count viruses as “life” (many people wouldn’t) then the genetic code DNA is almost but not quite universal because although some viruses are classed as “DNA viruses” meaning that they carry DNA but other viruses are classed as “RNA viruses” meaning that they o ...[text shortened]... od design or not, life is just stuck with them and if they are not ideal then that is just tuff.
    Here is a link to a piece about evolutionary 'blunders'. It seems evolution does not always lead to the best organism, another blow for creationism in itself, if creationists are right, why would god make an inferior organism?

    http://www.physorg.com/news135573322.html
  10. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    20 Jul '08 04:35
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Here is a link to a piece about evolutionary 'blunders'. It seems evolution does not always lead to the best organism, another blow for creationism in itself, if creationists are right, why would god make an inferior organism?

    http://www.physorg.com/news135573322.html
    That's yet one more thing they don't have a really good answer for.

    I never got their answer for the question as to why chicken have genes for teeth?

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mutant-chicken-grows-alli
    http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=403228
  11. Standard memberflexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    Chesstralia
    Joined
    18 Aug '03
    Moves
    54533
    20 Jul '08 04:532 edits
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    ...I never got their answer for the question as to why chicken have genes for teeth? ...
    a creationist could say : god decided they might need to be able to develop teeth sometime in the future ... which only proves how god is a nice person meaning well ...

    the one which gets me is why god would create misery and pain for the innocent ... why god would create humans which make the chickens live in those horrific circumstances that we do make them live in ... if god is so kind and wonderful then why do that?
  12. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    20 Jul '08 05:20
    Originally posted by flexmore
    a creationist could say : god decided they might need to be able to develop teeth sometime in the future ... which only proves how god is a nice person meaning well ...
    So god put them there so they could evolve them later 😉

    The thing is, when you have a wild card like god to play, you can make up anything. It doesn't have to be coherent with everything else.

    Of course, there are other examples of the results of common descent that would have to be explained away also.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    20 Jul '08 07:16
    Originally posted by flexmore
    a creationist could say : god decided they might need to be able to develop teeth sometime in the future ... which only proves how god is a nice person meaning well ...

    the one which gets me is why god would create misery and pain for the innocent ... why god would create humans which make the chickens live in those horrific circumstances that we do make them live in ... if god is so kind and wonderful then why do that?
    Answer # 1: there is no god.
    Answer # 2: If there is a god, it does not give a hoot about the earth, humans or the other animals on the earth, perhaps it just spun the dice and wants to see how it all plays out. Of course that flies in the face of the idea god is omnipotent and would know in advance how things would turn out.
    So back to answer # 1.
  14. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    20 Jul '08 08:57
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    [b]But, given the fact that DNA is far from being the perfect substance for life to use in our oxygen rich environment, this begs the question of why evolution didn’t make it evolve into a more suitable substance?

    How do you know there is a more suitable substance? What is it?[/b]
    Try:

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19926644.300-four-artificial-new-letters-for-the-dna-alphabet.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

    -Which shows how an “artificial DNA” substitute can be more stable than natural DNA.
Back to Top