"Craig Venter Kills Sacred Cow of Evolution"

[fishbob]

What do you know?

I can tell that you can recognize horse manure when you see it.
Valuable knowledge that far too few people have.

 

[fuelair]

This is what IDist people I know are crowing. Dawkins proved wrong! Tree of life is fiction! Based on the following:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_tree_044681.html

Of course the source's bias is clear, but is there anything to the claims within the article? I can't see the video.

Dog

Craig Venter Kills Sacred Cow of Evolution : I assume by orally removing it's digestive system and contents by buccal production of a vacuum around it's anal orifice.

 

[Ambrosia]

It could imply multiple emergence - but the point is that abiogenesis is not a 'sacred cow of evolution'

In fact, evidence of multiple abiogenesis events only suggests it's less rare than we originally assumed.

I'd love there to be proof around of multiple emergence. For no other reason than the fact it would make the odds that SETI found something worth talking about in my lifetime much lower.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I like the way he claims Dawkins is a liar as if Dawkins faked some original research or something. It's no more than a typical ad hom attack.

But, back to the science. This argument is akin to the rest, evolution theory is improbable because [X] disproves it. X never disproves evolution theory, however.

This article will help interested parties sort out the latest claim:

The Genetic Code

Explore Evolution wrongly state that biologists originally maintained that the genetic code is absolutely universal (invariant); that this absolute universality was considered evidence for common descent; that this would be a reasonable inference because changing the code would be invariably lethal ("not survivable"); and finally, that the claim of universality fell apart in the 1980s with the discovery of variant genetic codes. Thus, the authors claim, the genetic code is not universal and the inference of common descent is in question and life must have "multiple separate origins." They cite physicist Hubert Yockey to justify the claim: "Some scientists think this is a possibility, saying that the evidence may point to a polyphyletic view of the history of life." (p. 59)

There are many problems with this argument, which is based on misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the available knowledge and of the scientific record.

First, contrary to the key assertion, scientists have been aware of natural genetic code mutants since at least the 1960s, and the actual molecular mechanism of some of these mutations (such as "suppressors of amber") was elucidated in both bacteria and yeast (Goodman HM, Abelson J, Landy A, Brenner S, Smith JD. (1968)...

...Second, the small number of organisms with variant genetic codes and the limited extent of the changes (involving a few codons at most) strongly support the view that these represent new variations of the "standard," universal code, as opposed to independently originated codes. Moreover, the known code variants themselves offer in many cases evidence for common descent, being shared by related organisms according to the established phylogenetic hierarchy,...

 

[PixyMisa]

It's the usual Creationist "based on a true story" PR fail, then?

 

[Halfcentaur]

I don't think it suggests multiple instances of the emergence of life.

Most of the differences are in mitochondrial DNA, and we already knew that the mitochondrial code differed from the nuclear code.

Most of the differences also involve codons being interpreted as "start" or "stop" codons rather than coding for an amino acid, or codons which are not used, or codons which code for a different (but chemically similar) amino acid.

If we found an organism which didn't use nucleic acids to code genetic information, that would suggest multiple instances of the emergence of life. In this case, I'd say it suggests variation, but not especially radical variation.

I see, thanks!

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Craig Venter Kills Sacred Cow of Evolution : I assume by orally removing it's digestive system and contents by buccal production of a vacuum around it's anal orifice.

Nomed!

 

[yomero]

I like the way he claims Dawkins is a liar as if Dawkins faked some original research or something. It's no more than a typical ad hom attack.

But, back to the science. This argument is akin to the rest, evolution theory is improbable because [X] disproves it. X never disproves evolution theory, however.

This article will help interested parties sort out the latest claim:

The Genetic Code

Excellent link. There is one paragraph that explores the possibility that variations in the genetic code are present today in intermediate transitional form.

The particular genetic code mentioned by the authors, in which the UAG and UAA codons are used to encode the amino acid glutamine instead of STOP, results from two sets of changes. The first involves a reassignment of the transfer RNA for glutamine to recognize UAG and UAA. Interestingly, this kind of change can occur through intermediates with only partial effects ("wobble") (Schultz DW, Yarus M. 1994 "Transfer RNA mutation and the malleability of the genetic code" J. Mol. Biol. 235(5):1377-80). The second set of changes affects eRF1, one of the proteins involved in recognizing STOP codons (Lopuzone CA, Knight RD, Landweber LF. 2001 "The molecular basis of genetic code change in ciliates." Curr Biol. 11:65-74). Because of this, it is not "very hard" at all, and in fact very possible, to envision gradual evolution of this new genetic code through intermediates in which the codon interpretation is ambiguous; "hybrid codes" in a sense.