Monday, December 17, 2012

Here is That New DNA Repair Paper That Has Evolution Crashing Again

Without it Life Wouldn’t Work

RecA is a DNA repair protein and new research is helping to understand how it works. As one report explains:

Previous studies have shown that in bacteria, RecA forms a filament that winds itself around a broken, single strand of DNA. Like a matchmaker trying to find a partner for an unpaired dancer, it scours the corresponding DNA strands for a sequence that will pair up perfectly with the broken strand. Once it finds the sequence, the broken strand steps in and chemically bonds to its new partner, displacing one of the unbroken strands (which eventually pairs with the other broken strand). This elaborate molecular square dance allows the cell to go back to the work of duplicating its genome. Each broken strand now is paired with an unbroken one, and uses the intact strand as a template for replication.

But how does RecA do its job so quickly? The new research elucidates how the protein rapidly slides along the DNA macromolecule. And its speed is crucial, for without it the all-important DNA repair job wouldn’t be completed. As one of the researchers explained:

We did a calculation that found that without this kind of process that we discovered, then DNA repair would be 200 times slower. So your DNA would not be repaired quickly and damage would accumulate, possibly leading to serious diseases.

Life cannot sustain DNA damage going unrepaired. What this new research shows is that not only is the elaborate DNA repair machinery necessary, but that it is equipped with an incredible high speed search capability, which also is necessary.

This means that in addition to all the other complexities that early evolution must have created, it also must have bequeathed RecA its rapid search capability.

25 comments:

  1. So without that fast DNA repair enzyme, repair wouldn't be able keep up with the speed of replication.

    How amazing. A bit like how my legs have just the right length to reach the ground.

    But you forgot to mention how this crashes evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It crashes evolutionism because blind and undirected chemical processes cannot account for it.

      Delete
    2. If you wipe the grease from your glasses and your screen, you might find that it says "evolution" - not "evolutionism" - in the title.

      Delete
    3. If you could pull your head out of your arse you would know that to Dr Hunter "evolution" = evolutionism.

      Delete
    4. As I said first you have to pull your head out of your arse. And then all you would have to do is actually read what he posts.

      Delete
    5. Chubby Joe G

      As I said first you have to pull your head out of your arse. And then all you would have to do is actually read what he posts.


      Shorter fatty: "I can't back up my claim"

      Delete
    6. As I suspected, you cannot back up your claim.

      Your fascination with body parts inserted where the sun don't shine is duly noted.

      Delete
    7. LoL! All you have to do is ask him yourself.

      And there isn't any fascination with body parts inserted where the sun don't shine, just OBSERVATION.

      But anyway ask Dr Hunter if he is saying that evolution = evolutionism = “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.

      Delete
    8. As I said, you can't back up your claim and now you're reduced to helpless hand waving.

      You sure like to observe those body parts going where the sun don't shine, don't you?

      Thanks for the entertainment.

      Delete
    9. I understand you to be saying that the speed of replication is determined by the speed of the repair mechanism. I was under the impression that the speed of replication was determined by the chemistry and physicss of replication. The repair mechanism had to find a clever trick to keep up with replication.

      Delete
    10. The above post was addressed to the firsgt post by Troy.

      Delete
    11. As I said, you can't back up your claim and now you're reduced to helpless hand waving.

      In what way is asking Dr Hunter what he means being reduced to helpless handwaving? Asking him is the direct way to resolving the issue.

      You must be a cowardly blathering imbecile.

      Delete
    12. Joe, you claimed:

      to Dr Hunter "evolution" = evolutionism.

      Why should I ask the good Dr whether this is true? You made that claim. I'm simply asking you on what statements of Dr Hunter you base the claim. It's tempting to conclude you just sucked it out of your greasy thumb.

      Delete
    13. Nat:

      I understand you to be saying that the speed of replication is determined by the speed of the repair mechanism. I was under the impression that the speed of replication was determined by the chemistry and physicss of replication. The repair mechanism had to find a clever trick to keep up with replication.

      And your point is?

      My point was that replication speed and repair speed must co-evolve. Too fast replication with too many errors and the error threshold will be exceeded. So it's not surprising that fast replication is matched with fast error repair. It couldn't be any other way.

      Delete
    14. I'm simply asking you on what statements of Dr Hunter you base the claim.

      Many of them. Just because I don't have a reference list doesn't mean anything. And asking him would be the best way to support the claim.

      That you would even argue about that just proves that you are a useless tool, just like evolutionism.

      Delete
    15. You can't support your claim. That much is clear. Just shut up then and stuff some more burgers down your throat.

      Delete
    16. LoL! troy can't support anything....

      Delete
    17. Quote Troy:


      """""My point was that replication speed and repair speed must co-evolve. Too fast replication with too many errors and the error threshold will be exceeded. So it's not surprising that fast replication is matched with fast error repair. It couldn't be any other way."""""""

      So its just another cae of us getting really, really lucky I guess.

      Delete
    18. Joe,

      In Dr Hunter's post about Newtown before he edited it, he referenced evolutionism predates the ToE, in fact back to the Greeks. Theistic evolution advocates are unorthodox evolutionists, so it has more to do with explaining nature without God as an active agent

      Delete
  2. troy said:

    "How amazing. A bit like how my legs have just the right length to reach the ground."

    Not exactly "how". your legs have just the right length to reach the ground because of gravity. Another phenomenon scientists can't explain. But us YEC's have an explanation without even cracking open a science book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. us YEC's have an explanation without even cracking open a science book

      I'm impressed.


      Delete
    2. Evolutionists have an explanation without even cracking open scientific inquiry. "Eveoloootion did it".

      This is another example of irreducible complexity. The living cell must be viewed with a systems approach. A holistic system, not a piecemeal, unguided evolutionary pitstop.

      Delete
    3. Alright Tedford, as an expert on systems approaches, would you mind enlightening us as to how you would apply that technique in the DNA repair example? What sort of equations did you have in mind?

      Delete
  3. The way this repair process is described, it almost sounds exactly like 'crossover' events.

    Any comments, Dr. Hunter?

    ReplyDelete