[forsnax5]

Binary enzymes and abiogensis PING!

[pepsi_junkie]

"It's pretty clear that there was a time when life was based on RNA," says Joyce, "not just because it's feasible that RNA can be a gene and an enzyme and can evolve, but because we really think it happened historically."

Good science here. It is obvious it happened this way because we actually beleive it did. We dont have evidence or anything but it could have happened and we think it did, so there you go.

[Libertarian4Bush]

HOLD MUH NUCLEOTIDE ALERT!

[Physicist]

Irreducible simplicity.

[VadeRetro]

Oh, great! I see the other side is already digging trenches behind the position that science has to observe--but not touch--the whole thing happening in a mud puddle in a month or so or it doesn't mean a thing.

[Cooter]

Yeah, but how many enzymes would it take to write Shakespeare? </sarcasm>

[Redcloak]

Even in a 2 bit system, the RNA molecules themselves are very complex structures. Their research should now turn towards making simpler molecules to carry the genetic information. Unless...

[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.

[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!

[laredo44]

Bump for later.

[Doc Savage]

Great! Now about that trick where a rooster turns into a cat?? Can you do that one too??