DNA errors are scanned electrically

[Elshamah]

Greetings,

One of the mutations could be a repair mechanism - thus that organism with the mechanism would propagate successfully.

Kindest regards,

James

there was no mutations prior to replication.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

there was no mutations prior to replication.

I was referring to your answer below...

Nobody knows.

haha. :shock:

Ok. I will answer the question for you. Of course both had to come into existence at the same time, since 1. The repair machinery has no function without DNA. And 2. DNA would replicate and transcribe with such a high rate of mutations, that the organism would die quickly.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Citation needed for both assertions.

The enzymes involved in DNA repair could have evolved from an enzyme with a different purpose in pre-DNA life.

the baseless assertions and fertile fantasy goes fast here.....it takes enzymes to make enzymes, and DNA.....

I made no assertion. You did (without evidence). You claimed that only one explanation was possible, which requires you to rule out all other possible explanations or show that your explanation is overwhelmingly more probable.

Otherwise you are simply making an argument from ignorance.

Also, do you deny that the capability to produce one enzyme can evolve into the capability to produce a similar enzyme?

And certainly a multi-cellular organism may not be viable without repair mechanisms but single-celled organisms may not have this issue.

how do you possibly know ?

DNA errors are less of an issue for cells that divide rapidly. If a single-called organism makes defective copies it lowers the effective rate of reproduction but doesn't affect the health of the organism in the same way.

What part of this do you disagree with?

I don't believe viruses have this kind of repair mechanism at all and they do okay.

how can viruses survive without a host cell ?

What does that have to do with my statement?

 

[Elshamah]

Otherwise you are simply making an argument from ignorance.

Also, do you deny that the capability to produce one enzyme can evolve into the capability to produce a similar enzyme?

You are clearly not familiar with DNA repair. There are several different repair systems involved, not just one enzyme. The main mechanisms are :

Nucleotide excision repair (NER)
Base excision repair (BER)
DNA mismatch repair (MMR)
Repair through alkyltransferase-like proteins (ATLs)

Repair mechanisms in DNA include:

A proofreading system that catches almost all errors
A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system
Photoreactivation (light repair)
Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 – methylguanine methyltransferase
Base excision repair
Nucleotide excision repair
Double-strand DNA break repair
Recombination repair
Error-prone bypass

University of Chicago biologist James Shapiro points out that:

all cells from bacteria to man possess a truly astonishing array of repair systems which serve to remove accidental and stochastic sources of mutation. Multiple levels of proofreading mechanisms recognize and remove errors that inevitably occur during DNA replication. … cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability. By virtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not passive victims of the random forces of chemistry and physics. They devote large resources to suppressing random genetic variation and have the capacity to set the level of background localized mutability by adjusting the activity of their repair systems

Shapiro, J.A., A Third Way, Boston Review, p. 2, February/March 1997

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2043-dna-repair

 

[Rumraket]

Nobody knows.

haha. :shock:

Ok. I will answer the question for you. Of course both had to come into existence at the same time, since 1. The repair machinery has no function without DNA.

Actually no, logic dictates that DNA evolved before the repair mechanisms, because there'd be no selective pressure to evolve and maintain repair mechanisms for a yet-to-exist structure. That's it, the problem is trivial to solve.

And 2. DNA would replicate and transcribe with such a high rate of mutations, that the organism would die quickly.

That is simply false. A claim with no factual basis.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Otherwise you are simply making an argument from ignorance.

Also, do you deny that the capability to produce one enzyme can evolve into the capability to produce a similar enzyme?

You are clearly not familiar with DNA repair.

I am familiar enough to recognize your response as a complete non sequitur.

You are just doubling down on the idea that complexity must be designed because you can't think of another explanation.

Care to re-read my last post and try again?

 

[Elshamah]

Actually no, logic dictates that DNA evolved before the repair mechanisms

1. DNA could not have come to be through evolution, since evolution depends on DNA.
2. DNA without the machinery to transcribe and translate has no function by its own. Why should it arise at all ? Specially, facing the fact, that complex proteins (RNR) are required, which by themself require DNA to be made ?

And further problems must be answered, namely :


Following the unresolved issues of nucleotide biogenesis :

1. We have been able to make significant advances towards solving the long-standing problem of nucleotide abiogenesis, but our results highlight a number of issues that demand further investigation. First, what chemistry could have furnished the necessary chemical precursors, most importantly enantiomerically enriched glyceraldehyde? 2

2. The origins of homochirality and nucleotides seem to be inherently linked at the level of glyceraldehyde. As a racemizable molecule with one stereogenic center, glyceraldehyde
would appear to be the ideal molecule through which to provide at least enantiomeric enrichment or, ideally, dynamic kinetic resolution. Elucidating the origin of chiral glyceraldehyde and demonstrating the sequential sequestration of glycolaldehyde and glyceraldehyde or the separation/sanitization of ribonucleotide precursors may lead to the discovery of the chemical transformations that led to homochiral nucleotides.

3. Nucleotides must be oligomerized to generate RNA, and assuming that RNA must be 5′-3′-linked,28 a significant issue of regioselectivity must be overcome. Though, as a result of ringstrain, and are activated relative to NMP’s, they are not specifically activated to 5′-3′-oligomerization.

4. DNA components (the deoxyribonucleotides dADP, dCDP, dGDP and dUDP) are synthesised from their corresponding ribonucleotides by the reduction of the C2' position. The enzymes that do this are named ribonucleotide reductases.


The formation and accumulation of a certain length of polymers of nucleic acids and peptides are essential process toward the emergence of life-like system. 2

1) http://www.chtf.stuba.sk/~szolcsanyi/education/files/Organicka%20chemia%20II/Prednaska%2010_Nukleozidy/Doplnkove%20studijne%20materialy/The%20Origins%20of%20Nucleotides.pdf
2) http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/46508.pdf


further readings:

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1474-nucleotide-biosynthesis?highlight=nucleotide
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html#n02

, because there'd be no selective pressure to evolve and maintain repair mechanisms for a yet-to-exist structure. That's it, the problem is trivial to solve.

And 2. DNA would replicate and transcribe with such a high rate of mutations, that the organism would die quickly.

That is simply false. A claim with no factual basis

Sure. You seem to know more than specialists like Bruce Alberts ? :roll:

 

[Elshamah]

Otherwise you are simply making an argument from ignorance.

Also, do you deny that the capability to produce one enzyme can evolve into the capability to produce a similar enzyme?

But you can think of random chemical processes ? the fantasy and wishful thinking runs high here.....

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Actually no, logic dictates that DNA evolved before the repair mechanisms

1. DNA could not have come to be through evolution, since evolution depends on DNA.

No, it doesn't.

Evolution already existed before DNA - that's how DNA came into existence.

The rest of what you say fails due to the failure of your above claim.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

Actually no, logic dictates that DNA evolved before the repair mechanisms

1. DNA could not have come to be through evolution, since evolution depends on DNA.

False. RNA can do the job of information storage, that's what it does today in many organisms. Even in your own cells information is transported from the nucleus to the ribosome in the form of RNA, so your problem is entirely imaginary and without basis.

Some viruses have pure RNA genomes. All the information needed to encode their proteins is stored in RNA.

 

[Rumraket]

I just want to note the irony here. Elsamah provides this quote:

4. DNA components (the deoxyribonucleotides dADP, dCDP, dGDP and dUDP) are synthesised from their corresponding ribonucleotides by the reduction of the C2' position. The enzymes that do this are named ribonucleotide reductases.

Yet in the other thread he's protesting this very thing. DNA being biochemically synthesized from RNA.

This is cosmic-level stupidity.

 

[Rumraket]

Sure. You seem to know more than specialists like Bruce Alberts ? :roll:

Apparently yes, that seems to be the case. I'm sorry that your favorite quote-mining source is just trivially wrong.

 

[Rumraket]

University of Chicago biologist James Shapiro points out that:

Not that the particular thing you quote there is false, but I need to mention that within the biochemist community James Shapiro is known as a fringe nut and a bit of a crank.

But since you're quoting him, you are aware that James Shapiro believes life evolved right? He has suggested his own swathe of mechanisms for evolution that he has given various names, such as "natural genetic engineering". There is no god in this evolution, it is a natural mechanism. So I take it you disagree with James Shapiro, you believe he's wrong about life evolving just not about the particular thing you quote him for?

You must believe that, which brings up an interesting problem for you, because since you're all about argument from authority, how do you deal with the authority of James Shapiro? You just pick and choose which PhD you want to believe or what?

 

[Deleted member 619]

University of Chicago biologist James Shapiro points out that:

Not that the particular thing you quote there is false, but I need to mention that within the biochemist community James Shapiro is known as a fringe nut and a bit of a crank.

But since you're quoting him, you are aware that James Shapiro believes life evolved right? He has suggested his own swathe of mechanisms for evolution that he has given various names, such as "natural genetic engineering". There is no god in this evolution, it is a natural mechanism. So I take it you disagree with James Shapiro, you believe he's wrong about life evolving just not about the particular thing you quote him for?

You must believe that, which brings up an interesting problem for you, because since you're all about argument from authority, how do you deal with the authority of James Shapiro? You just pick and choose which PhD you want to believe or what?

Ah, yes. I'd meant to mention that in my predictions of this poster's behaviour, but it slipped my m,ind. The other thing to watch for is his all-time favourite, the fallacy of stolen concept, in which he tries to use science to debunk science.

 

[Elshamah]

Evolution already existed before DNA - that's how DNA came into existence.

The rest of what you say fails due to the failure of your above claim.

Kindest regards,

James

Who do you wish to convince and impress with baseless assertions ??

 

[Elshamah]

Ah, yes. I'd meant to mention that in my predictions of this poster's behaviour, but it slipped my m,ind. The other thing to watch for is his all-time favourite, the fallacy of stolen concept, in which he tries to use science to debunk science.

No. I use science to debunk pseudo scientific assertions, like yours. :wink:

 

[Rumraket]

Evolution already existed before DNA - that's how DNA came into existence.

The rest of what you say fails due to the failure of your above claim.

Kindest regards,

James

Who do you wish to convince and impress with baseless assertions ??

All you do is argue from baseless assertions. And quotes that don't mean or imply what you are seeking to argue.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Otherwise you are simply making an argument from ignorance.

Also, do you deny that the capability to produce one enzyme can evolve into the capability to produce a similar enzyme?

But you can think of random chemical processes ? the fantasy and wishful thinking runs high here.....

Do you understand what an argument from ignorance is?

Claiming that your argument lacks evidence doesn't require that I can prove a different argument. I'm happy to accept that there are things that no human currently knows.

A poor explanation with no evidence to support it is not more compelling than no explanation.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Evolution already existed before DNA - that's how DNA came into existence.

The rest of what you say fails due to the failure of your above claim.

Kindest regards,

James

Who do you wish to convince and impress with baseless assertions ??

I didn't realise that I had to provide evidence for something that's accepted by the science-oriented.

If you really don't know this, I'll be happy to provide evidence - all you need do is ask.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

No. I use science to debunk pseudo scientific assertions, like yours. :wink:

Another blatant lie.