Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

D.N.A. Repair Mechanism

stephen

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
5,265
New DNA Damage Repair Mechanism Must Have Arisen Early [Excerpts]

DNA damage repair is a fascinating topic in cell biology. Fascinating because the cell's repair mechanisms are so incredible.

What's more the mechanisms are coordinated in a sophisticated control network. As one researcher put it, "it's almost as if cells have something akin to a computer program that becomes activated by DNA damage, and that program enables the cells to respond very quickly."

Now a new mechanism has been discovered which repairs DNA alkylation damage (the erroneous addition of carbon groups to DNA bases). The new mechanism links two previously known mechanisms.

Here is how one science writer describes these two mechanisms:

The DNA repair process that removes such toxic "lesions" is known as base repair, and uses a protein called AGT (O6-alkylguanine DNA-alkytransferase) to remove the alkyl group before DNA replicates.

The protein essentially sticks a chemical finger inside the DNA to flip the damaged [base] out from the DNA helix structure so that its adduct is exposed and can be transferred from the [base] to a part of its protein structure.

The [base] is now repaired and can rejoin cytosine with three hydrogen bonds linking them.

This sophisticated and coordinated repair sequence was found in all three domains of life (prokaryotes, eukaryotes and archaea).

For evolutionists this forces the absurd conclusion that such a sophisticated DNA repair interaction evolved early on. Before there was so much as an amoeba, evolution had worked wonders.

The earliest crude cells must not have been so crude after all. Evolution incredibly worked miracles in those heady days of early life. As the researchers write:

Our analysis of lesion-binding site conservation identifies new ATLs in sea anemone and ancestral archaea, indicating that ATL interactions are ancestral to present-day repair pathways in all domains of life.

This conclusion that complexity comes early is often forced on evolutionists, in spite of the evolutionary expectations to the contrary.

Darwin's God: New DNA Damage Repair Mechanism Must Have Arisen Early

[TBC: "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Psalm 139:14).]
 
For evolutionists this forces the absurd conclusion that such a sophisticated DNA repair interaction evolved early on. Before there was so much as an amoeba, evolution had worked wonders.

I don't know much about evolution, but could you explain how this conclusion is "absurd"? If it's a mechanism that had to be in place before other mechanisms could be in place then it couldn't have come later, right?


The earliest crude cells must not have been so crude after all.

Well, I would think it depends on your use of the word "crude." Crude is a comparative term. A car is crude when compared to an aircraft carrier, but a rifle is crude compared to a car. I think that if I were only describing a cell, and not comparing it to another thing, I would never use the word "crude," even if I were describing a very basic cell.


This conclusion that complexity comes early is often forced on evolutionists, in spite of the evolutionary expectations to the contrary.

I don't know what you mean by "evolutionists," but I think that most scientists in the biology fields are often surprised by various findings. Certainly evolutionary science seems extremely exciting because of the new methods that are now at our disposal to study down at the level of dna. I think that unexpected results are so cool because they force science to input that new data into the models and calculate how those new data points affect the theories --whether to give more or less evidence to current hypothesis.


I confess that I'm a little confused, here, though. Are you implying that there is a certain form of "darwinism" (I don't know what that is) is bad for some reason, or are you implying that all evolutionary theory is wrong? I thought that almost all believers understood the concept of evolutionary theory and where it was solid and where it still needs more data and work. Thanks.
 
Dear brother Questioning.......Good questions I am sure.

But I am head over heals having met Jesus....and fallen in love with Him.

If He were to say Evolution made man...I would believe it. But having met Him I know He does not say this. He says "All things were made by me, and without me nothing was made....that was made"

I suggest you direct your questions to the link supplied.....if that is possible. If it proves accessible....please return to us and share the answers.......We are all interested.
 
Back
Top