Home
» Intelligent Design » DNA Repair Proteins: Efficiently Finding Genome Errors
DNA Repair Proteins: Efficiently Finding Genome Errors
| March 15, 2010 | Posted by Cornelius Hunter under Intelligent Design |
The heroics of the cell’s DNA repair system are well known, but new research is adding yet another incredible facet to the story. Experimentalists tagged DNA repair proteins with nanocrystals that light up. They then observed how they interact with DNA molecules. As reported: Read more
138 Responses to DNA Repair Proteins: Efficiently Finding Genome Errors
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
hrun0815:
Wrong again hrun.
You are 0 for the whole thread.
Sweet….
I didn’t call anyone an “intellectual coward”.
I made an observation.
What is a person that refuses to answer relevant questions all the while badgering people with nonsense?
Clive Hayden writes (126):
Certainly. If Joseph or someone else wanted to support his assertion that “Blind molecules can’t identify anything, let alone correct mistakes.” by demonstrating that it is logically impossible for a biochemical process to repair a DNA strand, that would of course be valid. Unfortunately for that argument, we observe exactly such biochemical processes happening.
If one wanted to support, solely with logic, the assertion that such processes could not develop without intelligent intervention, one would have to demonstrate the logical impossibility of that happening. This is where a knowledge of biochemistry is essential. While we talk about these processes as “repair mechanisms” and they do, in fact, increase the fidelity of DNA replication, anthropomorphizing the process leads to confusion about what is really happening, as exemplified in your statement that
What is really happening is that organisms that have higher fidelity replication are more likely to reproduce than organisms that do not. Phrased that way, it is easy to see how evolutionary mechanisms could gradually improve the repair capabilities. Even a simple, inefficient repair capability would be better than nothing, and this benefit could be selected for.
Do we know exactly how it happened? No, but it is an area of active research. The important point in this discussion is that it is not logically impossible. Joseph’s assertion remains unsupported.
Pan,
It is not logically impossible like a square circle, but it is logical to claim that it is logically implausible. It doesn’t have to be logically impossible to be implausible. It’s not logically impossible that I can, unaided, fly like an eagle, but it is implausible, and so here, the same logic applies.
Thanks Pan!
Yeah we observe DNA repair in action therefor it is a blind process!
Is that still your position?
That is hilarious Pan.
I supported my claim with facts- and the facts are that every time we have observed proof-reading and error correction agency has always been involved- always and without exception.
That said you refuse to answer my question:
Do you think that spellchecker is a blind process?
Do you think that continuing to aviod the question helps your position?
Pan states:
Perhaps to you.
But definitely not to those who understand how science operates.
Pan Narrans:
That doesn’t make any sense.
Pan is saying that in order for my claim to be correct we shouldn’t observe DNA repair.
SO DNA repair is a blind process because we can observe it happening.
And by extension spellchecker is a blind process because we can observe it happening.
CSI can arise by blind, undirected processes because we can observe CSI.
The words appear on this blog, not because they are directed by something, it is all blind processes and amazing coincidences.
And therefor blind, undirecetd (chemical) processes can account for living organisms arising from non-living matter?
So now we have some equivocation.
But yes if living organisms can arise from non-living matter via blind, undirected (chemical) processes, then repair can arise from blind, undirected processes.
But without that huge bit of supporting data, one has to figure out how a blind molecule can repair something without having any knowledge of a mistake existing and how to correct it.
And it appears you are unable to make that argument.
Clive Hayden writes (128):
True, but Joseph didn’t claim implausibility. He said “Blind molecules can’t identify anything, let alone correct mistakes.” That’s an unequivocal assertion that requires support.
Actually, the logic is quite different. If you want to make the argument that evolution of repair mechanisms is implausible, you’re going to have to get into the details of exactly how those mechanisms work in various organisms, what the shared characteristics tell us about the repair mechanisms in common ancestors, and the biochemistry of possible precursors. Simple arguments from incredulity are unconvincing.
Joseph
All unicorns are pink.
http://www.homestarrunner.com/crystal.html
Pan Narrans:
And what do you have to counter that claim?
Apparently nothing but a bald claim of assertion.
My support is observations and experience.
Your “support” is to cry assertion.
Pan Narrans:
I am not making that argument.
Again “evolution” has nothing to do with it.
Blind, undirected (chemical) processes is what is being debated.
Also do you think that by avoiding my posts it helps your case?
Your simple arguments from avoidance are unconvincing.
And, as always, I bet that scientists don’t actually qualify as people who understand how science operates, correct?
hrun0815-
Still afraid to answer my question-
Do you think that spellchecker is a blind process?
hrun0815:
Why would you say that?
Can you find ONE scientist which can demonstrate DNA repair is a blind process?
Ya see my point is that when scientists make an observation/ observations- if every time they observe X and it is always due to Y then when they observe X and didin’t see Y they infer Y was responsible.
Then if someday something other than Y is observed to cause X they amend their initial inference.
Do you understand that?
Joseph writes (133):
Thank you for that clarification. Some of your supporters in this thread seem to think that your assertion was about the evolvability of repair mechanisms, not their efficacy as observed now.
In that case, the fact that we observe a variety of these mechanisms operating in real cells refutes your assertion quite handily.
Pan Narrans:
There isn’t any evidence DNA repair mechanisms evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents from some population that never had a DNA repair mechanism.
Blind, undirected (chemical) processes is what is being debated.
Pan Narrans:
There isn’t any evidence that what we observe in real cells are blind, undirected (chemical) processes.
DNA does not get repaired outside of a cell.
That refutes your position.
But thanks for continuing to avoid my questions.
It is very telling that A) You avoid answering my questions and B) You are unable to make an argument for blind molecules being able to identify and correct errors.
Joseph writes (137):
That’s fine, we’ll leave the discussion of the evolution of such processes to other subthreads. Focus is good.
You have presented absolutely no evidence that anything else is going on.
Actually, the biochemistry of the repair mechanisms does work outside of a cell. What would make you think otherwise?
In any case, you’re attempting to move the goalposts. The fact is that you have not provided any evidence whatsoever that anything other than well-understood biochemistry is taking place in the repair process. Your assertion remains unsupported.