"Binary" Enzyme Created By Scripps Scientists Demonstrates Darwinian Evolution At Its Simplest

Scripps Research Institute / ScienceDaily News ^ | 12/19/2002 | John S. Reader, D.Phil, and Professor Gerald F. Joyce, M.D., Ph.D

[Lessismore]

Re your post #45

You're creation theory seems too weak to be taught in the public schools. But I think your eschatology is beautiful.

[Nebullis]

The information encoded into the sequences relies on the chemical interactions for maintaining its integrity, but neither the information nor the structures that the cell uses the DNA to generate is determined by them. Though G pairs with C, and A with T, there is nothing in the chemical interactions in a sequence of DNA that determines what the sequence can or must be.

But information and sequence as not equivalent. The specific sequence of atoms in, say, a salt crystal is not determined by chemical bonds either. (Unless you are like AndrewC and you think that hydrogen bonds have lost all covalent character and all other interactions between atoms are meaningless in biology.)

End ligatation is discerneably favorable for the different bases. Granted, end ligation is not the way sequence is propagated or changed in DNA. But that's not the point.

Always compare apples with apples.

It is quite another subject to say that there is information contained in one sequence of atoms but not in another sequence. You can't make that point with an argument about chemical bonds in the DNA molecule. The uniqueness of snow crystals, for instance, is not determined by chemical bonds, per se, but those differences don't happen to be used for information like the difference in DNA sequences are.

[balrog666]

Yesterday didn't happen. We of the Church of Last Thursday believe that the universe was created on Thursday (that's today) by the lord of the cats, Queen Maeve. When the end time comes (probably next Thursday, but there is some dispute on that matter), those who have been exceptionally nice to cats will become cats and live on Mars to be served by human slaves. Those who simply lead 'good' lives, but who are not exceptionally nice to cats will become human slaves to cats on Mars (though they will be treated well) and those who are cruel to cats will be cast into the Eternal Litterbox, which is never emptied.

Wait a minute, aren't we slaves to our cats now?

[Physicist]

Well, you just wait until a tornado rips through your junk yard.

Now, that's what I call ministry. Yea, verily, the scales falleth from mine eyes.

[pepsi_junkie]

HIV corrupts healthy cells and uses them to create copies of HIV. HIV by itself does not replicate itself. I see your point that an RNA based lifeform not only can exist, but does. However I think HIV is not a good example to back the scientist's assertion that RNA based lifeforms were probably the initial stage of evolution. It may have happened exactly that way, my message wasnt to say he is wrong. It was to point out that he used as evidence of that theory his own belief in it. That ammounts to zero value, IMHO. In truth, you did a better job of supporting that theory by pointing out an existing lifeform which meets at least some of the criteria the gentlemen was asserting were in existence at the dawn of time. But even that one is not a perfect analogue.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Thanks for your reply. But all living organisms destroy other organisms for their resources. We do it too. Until we re-engineer ourselves, I think we're stuck with it.

[jlogajan]

The information in a sequence of DNA is no more determined by the chemical interactions in the DNA than is the content of an AM radio message by the frequency of the carrier wave. While both rely on the nature of their particular medium for their propagation, neither is determined by it. This is wholly unlike crystal formation.

Snowflakes vary in shape for the same reason DNA can vary in arrangement. Magic is not needed to explain either one.

Of course DNA is a more complex system -- the point was that DNA itself "evolved" from simpler systems -- and those simpler systems were along the lines of chemical chains -- the same sort of forces that give rise to snowflakes, minerals, and other crystaline structures.

The difference between DNA and snowflakes is not one of "magic" or "design", but rather of evolved system complexity. Both, however, arise straight out of chemistry's ability to influence macrostructure based upon local electron configurations.

[jlogajan]

Nobody disputes microevolution. The theory of evolution, however, involves MACROEVOLUTION

There is no such distinction in reality. So called "macroevolution" is merely "microevolution" carried out long enough until it confuses creationists. Nature knows no such boundary. It is an artificial concept invented by creationists trying to redefine reality out of existance.

[jlogajan]

Try to code with ice.

Since snowflakes come in a variety of shapes, it is indeed possible to code with snowflakes. Try again.

[laredo44]

Bump for later.

[f.Christian]

Evolution is paper science---toilet paper!

[AndrewC]

Since snowflakes come in a variety of shapes, it is indeed possible to code with snowflakes. Try again.

Codes are repeatable, you try again.

[AndrewC]

The uniqueness of snow crystals, for instance, is not determined by chemical bonds, per se, but those differences don't happen to be used for information like the difference in DNA sequences are.

Do all pure mixtures of DNA melt at the same temperature given specific environment? Pure snowflakes melt at 0 degress Celsius given a specific environment. As to your salt crystal example, there apparently is no configuration limitation on DNA. Try to put all of the sodium ions on one side of a salt crystal. Finally, your mind reading is off again. Don't tell me what I think, you may quote what I write.

[AndrewC]

This is wholly unlike crystal formation.

Absolutely. I will be off for a Christmas vacation. God bless and have a blessed and holy Christmas.

[jlogajan]

Codes are repeatable, you try again.

The four base pairs of DNA are a subset of the possible alternatives. Game, set, match.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Not slaves, just staff.

[jlogajan]

Must be nice to have your own private version of reality...

Well, as you (should) know, "species" is an inexact man-made classification -- solely for the purpose of systemtizing the study of nature. Nature itself has no distinct notion of "species." Read more (and not just religious doctrine pamphlets.)

[f.Christian]

Science has its evil twin---evolution!