"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

[aruanan]

This research, described in the latest issue of the journal Nature, demonstrates that Darwinian evolution can occur in a genetic system with only two bases, and it also supports a theory in the field that an early form of life on earth may have been restricted to two bases.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel! The research simply shows that one can synthesize a protein using a nucleotide constructed of only two bases. All the rest is hand-waving.

[aruanan]

As these possible structures are proven to work, the creationists strawman gets more laughable by the minute.

Please, come back from the world of fantasy before you get stuck there.

[aruanan]

DNA and other life forms [sic] are really just an ongoing crystalization process, if you will.

I guess this just demonstrates what you know about DNA and molecular biology.

[gore3000]

In the current study, Reader and Joyce first created a three-base enzyme (A, U, G) and then performed chemical manipulations to convert all the A to D (diaminopurine, a modified form of A) and biochemical manipulations to remove all the G. They were left with an enzyme based on a two-letter code (D and U).

Let's see what has been 'proven' here. That if you manipulate chemicals in the laboratory you can get an enzyme out of two chemical bases - one of which is not one of the bases on which all life is based. Now this research does not tell us where they got the RNA strand, but I am sure that they 'borrowed' it. Of course, they created an enxyme which they refuse to name and may not even occur in any living thing. Of course even if you get an enzyme you will not get a living thing. You need the whole structure of some half million DNA bases and you certainly cannot have a working living thing with only two DNA bases one of which does not appear in any living thing. There are also lots of questions as to how the transcription took place and how much intervention was necessary to accomplish it - the article does not bother to say that either. You certainly need the cell itself for a living organism because the transcription needs material to form the enzyme, protein, or whatever it is producing. The so called scientists that did this so called research also did not even try to simulate natural conditions. They were trying to prove a point and used all the scientific knowledge we have to try to prove it and ended up proving nothing. Another example of our tax dollars at work!

[jlogajan]

The so called scientists that did this so called research also did not even try to simulate natural conditions.

Sorry, we already anticipated your call for a 300 million year experiment in a posting above.

[f.Christian]

DNA and other life forms are really just an ongoing crystalization process, if you will.


51 posted on 12/19/2002 6:20 PM PST by jlogajan

classic...brain damage!

[SwordofTruth]

Putting to rest all "tornado in a junkyard" arguments.

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

[jlogajan]

"DNA and other life forms are really just an ongoing crystalization process, if you will."

I guess this just demonstrates what you know about DNA and molecular biology.

Unless you are asserting DNA structures are formed and controlled by magic rather than electron configurations, then it's not clear what your objection is.

The point is that just as snowflakes can acquire complex and macroscale structures without an "intelligent designer" so too can other chemical structures arise.

Since we know DNA exists, you have a long haul to prove impossibility of natural events. Begin.

[jlogajan]

classic...brain damage!

Coming from you that's like a certificate of sanity!

[f.Christian]

brain flakes---evolution!

[AndrewC]

Unless you are asserting DNA structures are formed and controlled by magic rather than electron configurations, then it's not clear what your objection is.

The linear sequence of bases in DNA is not determined by the chemical bonds. That is why it can code.

AAAA

ACAA

AGAA

ATAA

CAAA

CCAA

CGAA

CTAA

GAAA

GCAA

GGAA

GTAA

TAAA

TCAA

TGAA

TTAA

AAAC

ACAC

AGAC

ATAC

CAAC

CCAC

CGAC

CTAC

GAAC

GCAC

GGAC

GTAC

TAAC

TCAC

TGAC

TTAC

AAAG

ACAG

AGAG

ATAG

CAAG

CCAG

CGAG

CTAG

GAAG

GCAG

GGAG

GTAG

TAAG

TCAG

TGAG

TTAG

AAAT

ACAT

AGAT

ATAT

CAAT

CCAT

CGAT

CTAT

GAAT

GCAT

GGAT

GTAT

TAAT

TCAT

TGAT

TTAT

AACA

ACCA

AGCA

ATCA

CACA

CCCA

CGCA

CTCA

GACA

GCCA

GGCA

GTCA

TACA

TCCA

TGCA

TTCA

AACC

ACCC

AGCC

ATCC

CACC

CCCC

CGCC

CTCC

GACC

GCCC

GGCC

GTCC

TACC

TCCC

TGCC

TTCC

AACG

ACCG

AGCG

ATCG

CACG

CCCG

CGCG

CTCG

GACG

GCCG

GGCG

GTCG

TACG

TCCG

TGCG

TTCG

AACT

ACCT

AGCT

ATCT

CACT

CCCT

CGCT

CTCT

GACT

GCCT

GGCT

GTCT

TACT

TCCT

TGCT

TTCT

AAGA

ACGA

AGGA

ATGA

CAGA

CCGA

CGGA

CTGA

GAGA

GCGA

GGGA

GTGA

TAGA

TCGA

TGGA

TTGA

AAGC

ACGC

AGGC

ATGC

CAGC

CCGC

CGGC

CTGC

GAGC

GCGC

GGGC

GTGC

TAGC

TCGC

TGGC

TTGC

AAGG

ACGG

AGGG

ATGG

CAGG

CCGG

CGGG

CTGG

GAGG

GCGG

GGGG

GTGG

TAGG

TCGG

TGGG

TTGG

AAGT

ACGT

AGGT

ATGT

CAGT

CCGT

CGGT

CTGT

GAGT

GCGT

GGGT

GTGT

TAGT

TCGT

TGGT

TTGT

AATA

ACTA

AGTA

ATTA

CATA

CCTA

CGTA

CTTA

GATA

GCTA

GGTA

GTTA

TATA

TCTA

TGTA

TTTA

AATC

ACTC

AGTC

ATTC

CATC

CCTC

CGTC

CTTC

GATC

GCTC

GGTC

GTTC

TATC

TCTC

TGTC

TTTC

AATG

ACTG

AGTG

ATTG

CATG

CCTG

CGTG

CTTG

GATG

GCTG

GGTG

GTTG

TATG

TCTG

TGTG

TTTG

AATT

ACTT

AGTT

ATTT

CATT

CCTT

CGTT

CTTT

GATT

GCTT

GGTT

GTTT

TATT

TCTT

TGTT

TTTT

All of those sequences are allowed and apparently in any order and number. Try to code with ice.

[aruanan]

Unless you are asserting DNA structures are formed and controlled by magic rather than electron configurations, then it's not clear what your objection is.

DNA sequences are maintained by chemical interactions. 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.

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.

[aruanan]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel! The research simply shows that one can synthesize a protein using a nucleotide constructed of only two bases. All the rest is hand-waving.

This should read:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel! The research simply shows that one can synthesize an enzyme using a nucleotide constructed of only two bases. All the rest is hand-waving.

[Junior]

Placemarker.

[Stavka2]

As I've stated before, Evolution and the Bible are not mutually exclusive. If God created the world, He created everything that works, then He might as easily have created evolution. What the Creationalists fear is a destruction of their own narcocism...they can't stand the idea that they evolved, by God's will, from something lesser.

[Stavka2]

Carp and gold fish...gold fish were bred from carp 1,000 years ago by humans, they are no longer breeding compatible and most aren't within various subgroups. NEXT!

[PatrickHenry]

What the Creationalists fear is a destruction of their own narcocism...they can't stand the idea that they evolved, by God's will, from something lesser.

They fear that their well-settled worldview may require some re-thinking, and that's something they're so ill-equipped to do that it terrifies them.

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

HIV is a retrovirus that has no DNA. Only RNA. Your comment was that the researcher was speculating about RNA being used for replication. HIV is an existing example of an organism with no DNA that uses RNA for replication.

[metacognative]

Sir, with all due respect, if you cannot see the qualitative difference between a snowflake and a cell..let's not waste time pretending to talk 'science'. Merry Christmas

[metacognative]

The only way to believe evolution could happen is if God did it!