Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"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

Posted on 12/19/2002 5:57:50 AM PST by forsnax5

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last
To: Dimensio
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.

81 posted on 12/20/2002 6:45:47 AM PST by Lessismore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
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.

82 posted on 12/20/2002 6:52:56 AM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
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?

83 posted on 12/20/2002 7:38:39 AM PST by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SwordofTruth
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.

84 posted on 12/20/2002 8:02:46 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
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.
85 posted on 12/20/2002 8:12:00 AM PST by pepsi_junkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: pepsi_junkie
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.
86 posted on 12/20/2002 8:18:12 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

Comment #87 Removed by Moderator

To: aruanan
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.

88 posted on 12/20/2002 8:55:39 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: nanrod
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.

89 posted on 12/20/2002 8:57:56 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Try to code with ice.

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

90 posted on 12/20/2002 8:59:55 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: forsnax5
Bump for later.
91 posted on 12/20/2002 9:01:16 AM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #92 Removed by Moderator

To: jlogajan
Evolution is paper science---toilet paper!
93 posted on 12/20/2002 9:42:10 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

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

Codes are repeatable, you try again.

94 posted on 12/20/2002 9:57:14 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
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.

95 posted on 12/20/2002 10:04:30 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; All
This is wholly unlike crystal formation.

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

96 posted on 12/20/2002 10:07:45 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Codes are repeatable, you try again.

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

97 posted on 12/20/2002 10:22:54 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Not slaves, just staff.
98 posted on 12/20/2002 10:24:44 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: nanrod
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.)

99 posted on 12/20/2002 10:25:36 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Science has its evil twin---evolution!
100 posted on 12/20/2002 10:49:27 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson