Another blow to creationists:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.