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.

[Confused]

Trisomy 21 is Downs syndrome. It is the result of an extra chromosome in the pair found at marker 21. It is a genetic anomaly that while is manageable usually leads to heart failure w/multiple cardiac complications in youth through early adulthood. I don't recall the current avg lifespan, I believe with multiple surgeries, etc... it is high, but the degree of mental retardation (sorry, cant think of the newest politically correct term for it) makes it so that few life independently, most live in assisted living facilities or group homes.

Now if science could actually manipulate the third chromosome and place it in a place that by genetic mapping, we know to be a limitation of humanity such as increasing strength or speed, and somehow manipulate it to be a non-lethal and positive mutation in the genetic sequence, then I think it would be pretty cool. But unfortunately, it is relatively easy to manipulate bacteria. They are much less complex though they are more adaptable than man.

The problem I think is that by manipulating one sequence, we may end up causing a cascading effect that, although the original manipulation is positive for evolution, it might lead to a lethal or non-lethal but negative mutation in another sequence.

Either way, I am not ready to be the first in line for this newest experiment. I happen to enjoy my offspring having two arms, two legs, two ears, two eyes, etc.....

[Goat]

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.

It will have no effect on the anti-evolution critics. They are not arguing from evidence, they are arguing from faith and emotion, rather than looking at the evidence.

[Confused]

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.

It will have no effect on the anti-evolution critics. They are not arguing from evidence, they are arguing from faith and emotion, rather than looking at the evidence.

Actually, wouldn't ID believers say that God is who directed man to make this breakthrough so it isn't actually information gain since God had it all along, He just planned for us to discover it now?

[Furrowed Brow]

Trisomy 21 is Downs syndrome. It is the result of an extra chromosome in the pair found at marker 21. It is a genetic anomaly that while is manageable usually leads to heart failure w/multiple cardiac complications in youth through early adulthood. I don't recall the current avg lifespan, I believe with multiple surgeries, etc... it is high, but the degree of mental retardation (sorry, cant think of the newest politically correct term for it) makes it so that few life independently, most live in assisted living facilities or group homes.

Now if science could actually manipulate the third chromosome and place it in a place that by genetic mapping, we know to be a limitation of humanity such as increasing strength or speed, and somehow manipulate it to be a non-lethal and positive mutation in the genetic sequence, then I think it would be pretty cool. But unfortunately, it is relatively easy to manipulate bacteria. They are much less complex though they are more adaptable than man.

The problem I think is that by manipulating one sequence, we may end up causing a cascading effect that, although the original manipulation is positive for evolution, it might lead to a lethal or non-lethal but negative mutation in another sequence.

Either way, I am not ready to be the first in line for this newest experiment. I happen to enjoy my offspring having two arms, two legs, two ears, two eyes, etc.....

Have you not seen the X-men. Surely scientific proof of the positiveness of the information gaining potential of genetic evolution. Sign up now!

Your point is interesting. When discussing diggnate's ID take on the information positiveness of evolutution, I think he would say the case you described is information loss. But my point would be its all information, and you need objective criteria; the 1st deciding factor being survival. However if a third gene was an X-man gene, i.e. it increased intelligence, emotional, mathematical, physical dexterity, or you could control the weather, then that part of the Id case would be a dead parrot. Would it not?

[Confused]

Trisomy 21 is Downs syndrome. It is the result of an extra chromosome in the pair found at marker 21. It is a genetic anomaly that while is manageable usually leads to heart failure w/multiple cardiac complications in youth through early adulthood. I don't recall the current avg lifespan, I believe with multiple surgeries, etc... it is high, but the degree of mental retardation (sorry, cant think of the newest politically correct term for it) makes it so that few life independently, most live in assisted living facilities or group homes.

Now if science could actually manipulate the third chromosome and place it in a place that by genetic mapping, we know to be a limitation of humanity such as increasing strength or speed, and somehow manipulate it to be a non-lethal and positive mutation in the genetic sequence, then I think it would be pretty cool. But unfortunately, it is relatively easy to manipulate bacteria. They are much less complex though they are more adaptable than man.

The problem I think is that by manipulating one sequence, we may end up causing a cascading effect that, although the original manipulation is positive for evolution, it might lead to a lethal or non-lethal but negative mutation in another sequence.

Either way, I am not ready to be the first in line for this newest experiment. I happen to enjoy my offspring having two arms, two legs, two ears, two eyes, etc.....

Have you not seen the X-men. Surely scientific proof of the positiveness of the information gaining potential of genetic evolution. Sign up now!

Your point is interesting. When discussing diggnate's ID take on the information positiveness of evolutution, I think he would say the case you described is information loss. But my point would be its all information, and you need objective criteria; the 1st deciding factor being survival. However if a third gene was an X-man gene, i.e. it increased intelligence, emotional, mathematical, physical dexterity, or you could control the weather, then that part of the Id case would be a dead parrot. Would it not?

Yes, but if the third chromosome was a Trisomy 21 disorder, then we would have a loss of information (ie. mental retardation).

But if we can pick, I want to be Storm. To control the weather, we would have a thunderstorm every single night (sex on the beach is always better during a storm)!!!!

[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.

It will have no effect on the anti-evolution critics. They are not arguing from evidence, they are arguing from faith and emotion, rather than looking at the evidence.

True. But what I think the information critique of evolution is a mercurial position as leaky as a sieve, but one which they can always subtly change the goal posts on, thus evade falsification. However I think the information rug can be pulled from underneath them. In which case I fully expect the ID proponents to think up another tactic, and the thicker skinned ones not notice the rug has been pulled. However, an X-man scenario would cause them a problem. Would it not?

[Confused]

I think time and technology will ultimately disprove ID as well as God. The more we advance (evolve) the more we can explain. There is only two things most ID and religions use to keep the masses now. It gives a beginning of life and existence after death. Aside from that, religion has no other purpose. Unfortunately ID will still say that God planned it this way. Now, I believe in Genesis God declares man will not live past the age of 100+ something. If we could manipulate it enough to extend life to 200+, we would in fact outright disprove God.

[Furrowed Brow]

Trisomy 21 is Downs syndrome. It is the result of an extra chromosome in the pair found at marker 21. It is a genetic anomaly that while is manageable usually leads to heart failure w/multiple cardiac complications in youth through early adulthood. I don't recall the current avg lifespan, I believe with multiple surgeries, etc... it is high, but the degree of mental retardation (sorry, cant think of the newest politically correct term for it) makes it so that few life independently, most live in assisted living facilities or group homes.

Now if science could actually manipulate the third chromosome and place it in a place that by genetic mapping, we know to be a limitation of humanity such as increasing strength or speed, and somehow manipulate it to be a non-lethal and positive mutation in the genetic sequence, then I think it would be pretty cool. But unfortunately, it is relatively easy to manipulate bacteria. They are much less complex though they are more adaptable than man.

The problem I think is that by manipulating one sequence, we may end up causing a cascading effect that, although the original manipulation is positive for evolution, it might lead to a lethal or non-lethal but negative mutation in another sequence.

Either way, I am not ready to be the first in line for this newest experiment. I happen to enjoy my offspring having two arms, two legs, two ears, two eyes, etc.....

Have you not seen the X-men. Surely scientific proof of the positiveness of the information gaining potential of genetic evolution. Sign up now!

Your point is interesting. When discussing diggnate's ID take on the information positiveness of evolutution, I think he would say the case you described is information loss. But my point would be its all information, and you need objective criteria; the 1st deciding factor being survival. However if a third gene was an X-man gene, i.e. it increased intelligence, emotional, mathematical, physical dexterity, or you could control the weather, then that part of the Id case would be a dead parrot. Would it not?

Yes, but if the third chromosome was a Trisomy 21 disorder, then we would have a loss of information (ie. mental retardation).

But if we can pick, I want to be Storm. To control the weather, we would have a thunderstorm every single night (sex on the beach is always better during a storm)!!!!

Sex on the Beach
- 1 1/2 oz. vodka
- 3/4 oz. peachtree schnapps
- 1/2 oz. creme de cassis
- 2 oz. orange juice
- 2 oz. cranberry juice
- orange slice, maraschino cherry

[Furrowed Brow]

I think time and technology will ultimately disprove ID as well as God. The more we advance (evolve) the more we can explain. There is only two things most ID and religions use to keep the masses now. It gives a beginning of life and existence after death. Aside from that, religion has no other purpose. Unfortunately ID will still say that God planned it this way. Now, I believe in Genesis God declares man will not live past the age of 100+ something. If we could manipulate it enough to extend life to 200+, we would in fact outright disprove God.

And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,
for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and
twenty years. (Genesis 6:3)

So does Jeane Louise Calment 122 years 164 days falsify all literal readings of the bible?

And what if Ma Pampo 127 comes up trumps.