3 Base Pair DNA

[Furrowed Brow]

Recent debates have got me thinking about evolution and genetics. 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.

[Cathar1950]

I was wondering if you were talking about "sex on the beach" the drink or the activity. Sex in the rain is fun and exciting but lighting can be scary.
How does it go?
Good drink is to conversation like bed is to sex.
You don't need it but it makes it a lot more comfortable.
From "The Last Great Place": the history of Pubs.

[otseng]

I think time and technology will ultimately disprove ID as well as God. The more we advance (evolve) the more we can explain.

Can't let this statement go by unchallenged.

I actually believe in the opposite. Advancements in science will actually strengthen ID and lead to more evidence for a creator.

I'm rereading now a good book, Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton. If anyone wants to read a good scientific book challenging conventional Darwinism, I'd highly recommend this book.

[McCulloch]

I think time and technology will ultimately disprove ID as well as God. The more we advance (evolve) the more we can explain.

I actually believe in the opposite. Advancements in science will actually strengthen ID and lead to more evidence for a creator.

Both of these points of view are mere speculation not debate.

I'm rereading now a good book, Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton. If anyone wants to read a good scientific book challenging conventional Darwinism, I'd highly recommend this book.

I might just take you up on that. Thanks.

[Cathar1950]

Thanks otseng I just ordered it from my library.
We should start a book club.

[Goat]

I think time and technology will ultimately disprove ID as well as God. The more we advance (evolve) the more we can explain.

Can't let this statement go by unchallenged.

I actually believe in the opposite. Advancements in science will actually strengthen ID and lead to more evidence for a creator.

I'm rereading now a good book, Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton. If anyone wants to read a good scientific book challenging conventional Darwinism, I'd highly recommend this book.

I can not let either of these statemetns go unchallanged. I find that the current promoters of ID, including Behe, and Dembski have totally been discredited at the Dover trial about I.D.

I will say that 'Nature's destiny' is a definate shift for Denton, who has gone from
'special creation' to 'directed evolution'. That doesn't make I.D. anything more than a spruced up statement of faith though. I do not think I.D. will be anything more than a statement of faith.

I do not believe that science will be able to either prove or disprove God either.

[otseng]

I might just take you up on that. Thanks.

Thanks otseng I just ordered it from my library.
We should start a book club.

A while ago, someone asked to do a book exchange here. He asked me to read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. I ended up buying the book and reading it. But, the challenger never came back to the forum for us to debate it. But if he did, I was going to recommend Nature's Destiny as the book for him to read.

Perhaps we can do a book exchange debate on this. If someone is willing to debate me on this book, I'd be willing to read any book of your choice.

[Confused]

I might just take you up on that. Thanks.

Thanks otseng I just ordered it from my library.
We should start a book club.

A while ago, someone asked to do a book exchange here. He asked me to read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. I ended up buying the book and reading it. But, the challenger never came back to the forum for us to debate it. But if he did, I was going to recommend Nature's Destiny as the book for him to read.

Perhaps we can do a book exchange debate on this. If someone is willing to debate me on this book, I'd be willing to read any book of your choice.

I just ordered the book. I can't specify a book in relation to in until I have read the book, otherwise a book I recommend could very well be irrelevant. But after I read it, I will definately challenge you on this.

I think that science can and will disprove ID. Perhaps I jumped too far ahead to include the existence of a God, but ID seems to convienently alter its definition or concept every time a new discovery or advancement is made in science. Tell me, if technology advanced to the point that we could detect an oncoming asteroid a month before impact with the earth, would you think God would destroy it if we prayed hard enough? If technology at that time could only destroy 3/4 of it, but 1/4 of it was still to impact earth which would erradicate 3/4 of the population, how would ID proponents explain this? That God wanted 3/4 of the earths population to die but gave us the technology to at least save 1/4 of the population? I would assume that the 3/4 of the population killed would be nonbelievers because God would want to kill His flock, he protects them, right? I have serious issues with ID because it came into existence only when creationism seemed to be disproved on new levels every year. Now instead of God creating us with everything we need, instead He created us with the ability to fend for ourselves and adapt to the environment in which we live. How convenient. If He could truly do this, can you explain to me why exactly is it He couldn't create us as non-sinners?

[otseng]

I've created a thread to signup for debating the book - Book debate on Nature's Destiny. We can start in several weeks to allow time for everyone to acquire the book and to start reading it.

[Confused]

I might just take you up on that. Thanks.

Thanks otseng I just ordered it from my library.
We should start a book club.

A while ago, someone asked to do a book exchange here. He asked me to read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. I ended up buying the book and reading it. But, the challenger never came back to the forum for us to debate it. But if he did, I was going to recommend Nature's Destiny as the book for him to read.

Perhaps we can do a book exchange debate on this. If someone is willing to debate me on this book, I'd be willing to read any book of your choice.

Ok, going on what I have been told your book alludes mostly to, I would request that you read:

Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design by Michael Shermer.

[otseng]

Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design by Michael Shermer.

I've placed a request at my library for the book.

I'd suggest starting a thread in the Comments subforum and solicit others to get the book as well. After we debate Nature's Destiny, we can do this one.