SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brumar89 who wrote (9781)11/12/2010 2:46:03 PM
From: Jacques Chitte  Read Replies (1) of 69300
 
Common ancestry is likely for currently surviving phyla. However the argument against spontaneous generation is much less likely.

The living structures reifying the genetic code must operate within the rules of chemistry while satisfying an irreducible set of functional requirements. Such molecular machinery doesn't just spring into being in a week ... unless one considers scripture to be science.
As soon as one working genetic code was in place, any others would be suppressed from emerging, even if they are chemically possible. The first successful code would allow organisms to reproduce ... and to eat. Other coding schemes would be rendered moot as their incomplete embodiments would get eaten. The energetic and entropic barriers to the emergence of a second coding scheme are way too high.

Regarding the evolution of genetic core chemistry - most biochemists currrently hypothesize that the earliest lifeforms used RNA for everything - process as well as storage. Modern cells use the much more robust DNA for storage of genomic information. The same cells use RNA as the processors - the molecules which, together with the right proteins, constitute the machinery for transcription, translation and repair of the genetic "tape".
cheers js
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext