dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/17/85)
You may be aware that the genetic code has now been found to be non-universal...exceptions to what some of the codons code for have been discovered in certain organisms (references at end). In light of this, I will venture to make a small prediction... For several years now we have been told that the uniformity of the genetic code among all organisms constitutes a verification of the "grand prediction" (Eldredge's words) of evolutionary theory (though of course that that is just grandstanding - it's a "prediction" after the fact). But now that variants on the coding scheme have been discovered, the picture changes. I predict that within a short time, after the initial surprise wears off, we will witness descriptions of this fact in which the discovery is hailed as a remarkable and striking confirmation of, you guessed it...the evolutionary development of life on earth! One form which this assertion shall take is that since life began as a result of non-directed processes, it is to be expected that the development of life would follow more than one path, as "evidenced" by the non-uniformity of the code. We may deduce from this that the issue is not really "evidence" at all, but simply that all events, whatever they may be, may be described in terms of the evolution that is "known" to occur. If the code is uniform, it confirms the fact of evolution (as an explanation of the underlying ancestry of all life). If the code is not uniform, that too confirms the fact of evolution (as an opportunistic process). This is no condemnation, of course. For it is also obvious that creationists do the same thing most of the time. All data are interpreted in terms of the underlying framework supporting one's assumptions. But the scientists claim to be "liberated" from the chains of dogma and certainty. An irony of the situation is that creationists are asked "Well, if life is designed, why didn't the creator design organisms in different ways? The genetic code shows the underlying unity of all life...which we would not expect from a designer, who ought to take the needs of each individual orgamism into account." Now, of course this is bull, because no one can tell (scientifically) what the designer will or will not do. If we should now find in fact that there if a veritable panoply of genetic systems (or even small divergences), there will be a shift. The creationist will be asked why the creator was so capricious, because after all, one would expect the designer to be consistent! Just watch. I'll bet you that this will happen. It is left as an exercise for the reader to predict what the creationists will do with this information... --- Francois Caron, Eric Mayer, "Does Paramecium primaurelia use a different genetic code in its macronucleus? Nature, 314(6007), 14 March 1985, 185-188. J R Preer, Jr, L M Preer, B M Rudman, A J Barnett, "Deviation from the universal code shown by the gene for surface protein 51A in Paramecium Nature, 314(6007), 14 March 1985, 188-190. "Breaking the Genetic Law", Time, 8 April, 1985, 68-69. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | Science is Dead. |
fritz@phri.UUCP (Dave Fritzinger) (04/22/85)
> > You may be aware that the genetic code has now been found to be > non-universal...exceptions to what some of the codons code for have > been discovered in certain organisms (references at end). In light of > this, I will venture to make a small prediction... > > For several years now we have been told that the uniformity of the > genetic code among all organisms constitutes a verification of the > "grand prediction" (Eldredge's words) of evolutionary theory (though of > course that that is just grandstanding - it's a "prediction" after the > fact). > > But now that variants on the coding scheme have been discovered, the > picture changes. I predict that within a short time, after the initial > surprise wears off, we will witness descriptions of this fact in which > the discovery is hailed as a remarkable and striking confirmation of, > you guessed it...the evolutionary development of life on earth! One > form which this assertion shall take is that since life began as a > result of non-directed processes, it is to be expected that the > development of life would follow more than one path, as "evidenced" by > the non-uniformity of the code. > > We may deduce from this that the issue is not really "evidence" at all, > but simply that all events, whatever they may be, may be described in > terms of the evolution that is "known" to occur. If the code is > uniform, it confirms the fact of evolution (as an explanation of the > underlying ancestry of all life). If the code is not uniform, that too > confirms the fact of evolution (as an opportunistic process). > > This is no condemnation, of course. For it is also obvious that > creationists do the same thing most of the time. All data are > interpreted in terms of the underlying framework supporting one's > assumptions. But the scientists claim to be "liberated" from the > chains of dogma and certainty. > > An irony of the situation is that creationists are asked "Well, if life > is designed, why didn't the creator design organisms in different > ways? The genetic code shows the underlying unity of all life...which > we would not expect from a designer, who ought to take the needs of > each individual orgamism into account." Now, of course this is bull, > because no one can tell (scientifically) what the designer will or will > not do. > > If we should now find in fact that there if a veritable panoply of > genetic systems (or even small divergences), there will be a shift. > The creationist will be asked why the creator was so capricious, > because after all, one would expect the designer to be consistent! > Just watch. I'll bet you that this will happen. > > It is left as an exercise for the reader to predict what the > creationists will do with this information... > > --- > > Francois Caron, Eric Mayer, "Does Paramecium primaurelia use a > different genetic code in its macronucleus? Nature, 314(6007), 14 > March 1985, 185-188. > > J R Preer, Jr, L M Preer, B M Rudman, A J Barnett, "Deviation from the > universal code shown by the gene for surface protein 51A in Paramecium > Nature, 314(6007), 14 March 1985, 188-190. > > "Breaking the Genetic Law", Time, 8 April, 1985, 68-69. > -- > | > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > | > Science is Dead. | If you read the articles, I think you'll see that the changes in the code are really quite minor. By this I mean that one or two stop codons have been changed so that they now code for an amino acid. It's still pretty amazing that human beings and E. coli both have the same code, and it must say something about the relatedness of life on Earth Dave Fritzinger Science Lives!!!!!! Creationism is dead