Monday, April 16, 2012

Here’s a Very Complicated and Unique DNA Finding That Contradicts Evolution

You may remember from your high school biology class that DNA segments called genes are transcribed and that the copy, which is slightly different and called RNA, is then translated into a string of amino acids which folds up into a new protein. And in the more complicated eukaryote cells this process is more elaborate because the genes can be split up into multiple segments (called exons) in the DNA. This means the RNA transcript needs some editing to splice out the intervening regions. You may also remember your teacher explaining the cell division process and how the DNA is duplicated so that in the end there are two identical copies of the cell’s genome.

Finally you may remember your teacher explaining that these processes are found throughout all life, thus proving evolution yet again. For with evolution you cannot have one-offs. As your teacher assured you, evolution would be instantly falsified and discarded by all scientists if somewhere in the tree of life some organisms here or there revealed some other way of doing business.

Well guess what? One-off solutions are all over the evolutionary tree. The pattern that evolutionists expected didn’t turn out. Regarding the DNA mechanisms, consider the well-studied single-cell eukaryote named Trypanosoma brucei. Its mitochondria (the organelle that is the cell’s powerplant, turning food into fuel) employs very different, and incredible schemes.

First, the mitochondria DNA forms a huge, elegant network organized into so-called maxicircles and minicircles. There are a couple dozen maxicircles and thousands of minicircles. The minicircles are all different and laid out into an exact, three-dimensional network where each one is interconnected with just three neighbors.

This network is exactly recreated, with each minicircle copied and inserted in the right place, each time the cell divides into two daughter cells. It is a very complicated replication process.

Each minicircle is duplicated and a protein tag is attached to the copy indicating that it is a copy so that particular minicircle need not be copied. While this is occurring the entire network is slowly rotating between two opposing nodes where the copied minicircles are collected.

And regarding the DNA-RNA-protein sequence, a very different editing process is used. It is called “extensive RNA editing” but the label doesn’t do it justice. For many, but not all, of the mitochondria genes, hundreds of nucleotides are added to the RNA transcript and dozens are removed. All of this is done mistake-free, for if it isn’t done just right the result would likely be a useless protein. Not surprisingly all of this requires close to a thousand genes, in order to construct only a few dozen genes.

These are very unique solutions that do not form an evolutionary tree pattern. Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution.

12 comments:

  1. related note:

    DNA - Replication, Wrapping & Mitosis (a world Darwin never dreamed of) - video
    http://vimeo.com/33882804

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. further note:

      Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? - Koonin
      Excerpt: However, several core components of the bacterial (DNA) replication machinery are unrelated or only distantly related to the functionally equivalent components of the archaeal/eukaryotic (DNA) replication apparatus.
      http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/27/17/3389

      Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock?
      Excerpt: In particular, the detailed mechanics of DNA replication would have been quite different. It looks as if DNA replication evolved independently in bacteria and archaea,... Even more baffling, says Martin, neither the cell membranes nor the cell walls have any details in common (between the bacteria and the archaea).
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html?page=1

      Delete
  2. Is this one published in Nature Biotechnology?

    A closer look at RNA editing, by Lior Pachter

    http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v30/n3/full/nbt.2156.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Enezio. Please see the next post for further discussion, and links.

      Delete
  3. He usually makes you guess, which is the strongest evidence he's demonspawn (note to fundamentalists: joking). Conscientious humans would provide the full reference and abstract.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NickM states:

      'which is the strongest evidence he's demonspawn'

      Actually Nicky, I think I got much stronger evidence than that proving that you are a child of the devil:

      Little Nicky - (2000)- movie trailer
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRpphTCJAkw

      Delete
    2. More seriously Nicky;

      The Devil's Delusion - C-SPAN video
      David Berlinski talked about his book 'The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.'
      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Delus

      Delete
  4. CH: "As your teacher assured you, evolution would be instantly falsified and discarded by all scientists if somewhere in the tree of life some organisms here or there revealed some other way of doing business."

    I don't ever remember my teacher saying this, but then again, I never had Mr. Strawman for biology.

    ReplyDelete
  5. CH: Well guess what? One-off solutions are all over the evolutionary tree. The pattern that evolutionists expected didn’t turn out. Regarding the DNA mechanisms, consider the well-studied single-cell eukaryote named Trypanosoma brucei. Its mitochondria (the organelle that is the cell’s powerplant, turning food into fuel) employs very different, and incredible schemes.

    Who expected it? Why did they expect it? What is the underlying explanation behind it? When was this prediction actually made. Have we learned anything new that would cause us to predict otherwise, since then?

    None of these things are addressed because they simply do not suit Cornelius' agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Prediction 1.2 by Theobald at

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

    Falsified.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tedford the idiot

    Prediction 1.2 by Theobald at

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

    Falsified.


    Scientific ignorance of Tedford the idiot:

    Verified.

    ReplyDelete