A subject to be honest I am not strong on. So I am open to advice.Anyhow: apparently it is now possible to expand the genetic code . DNA with 3 or more base pairs can be produced in a test tube. So far only 2 base pairs have been found in nature. The weakness of 3 base pair system is that replication fidelity is reduced. In nature 2 base pairs replication makes one mistake in approximately every 10 million base pairs. Whilst for the best test tube 3 pair system the figure is 1 in 1000. Thus there seems to be an inherent problem of less efficient replication for systems with more than 2 base pairs. This probably accounts for 2 base pairs only being found in nature.
However, this does not mean nature can not and has not from time to time tried out 3 base pair DNA, only for lack of fidelity in replication to quickly undo the step up from 2 to 3 (or more) base pairs. [My assumption]
It seems possible (to me at least) that Nature could flirt with 3 base pairs, and if we happen to be looking in the right place at the right time we might find an example of this. However I am not sure what the implications would be for an organism that has managed to make the leap. Would the level of infidelity mean the organism would quickly die out? I suppose this must be the case, otherwise we would be finding real examples in nature. But that does not mean that if we get lucky and are looking in the right place at the right time we might not find a 3 base organism. Albeit one that does not last for very long.
So Question. Would finding a natural 3 base pair organism in nature have any impact on the anti-evolution critics? Especially the ID type arguments that say evolution cannot produce information gain.
