Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
- Status
Jose Fly
New member
Like I said, it's impossible to advocate creationism honestly.
That's because evolutionists spend no time understanding their opponents' position and present nothing but nonsense as challenges.
Not exactly. The original squid population had its DNA designed by God, which gave it the ability to manage its RNA.
Jose Fly
New member
For much the same reason cosmologists don't bother learning about Christian fixed-earth geocentrism....they simply don't matter at all to their fields of study.
No, it was designed by Allah...or Vishnu....or Odin...or Zeus....um....:rotfl:
Best. Joke. Ever
Despite all the trolls, the challenge to evolution remains: How could random mutations and natural selection produce a system by which squids can recode their own RNA?
Because it is beneficial and therefore selected for over time. That's natural selection's definition
Assuming the truth of evolution is no way to approach a challenge to evolution. Your approach reveals that your desire to hold on to a belief has superseded your willingness to be scientific.
How can you say that and have the quote about Noah's Flood being real on the bottom of your posts?
You might die alone
RNA editing has been observed in some tRNA, rRNA, mRNA or miRNA molecules of eukaryotes and their viruses, archaea and prokaryotes. RNA editing occurs in the cell nucleus and cytosol, as well as within mitochondria and plastids. In vertebrates, editing is rare and usually consists of a small number of changes to the sequence of affected molecules. In other organisms, extensive editing (pan-editing) can occur; in some cases the majority of nucleotides in a mRNA sequence may result from editing.
The RNA-editing system seen in the animal may have evolved from mononucleotide deaminases, which have led to larger gene families that include the apobec-1 and adar genes. These genes share close identity with the bacterial deaminases involved in nucleotide metabolism. The adenosine deaminase of E. coli cannot deaminate a nucleoside in the RNA; the enzyme’s reaction pocket is too small to for the RNA strand to bind to. However, this active site is widened by amino acid changes in the corresponding human analog genes, APOBEC-1 and ADAR, allowing deamination. The gRNA-mediated pan-editing in trypanosome mitochondria, involving templated insertion of U residues, is an entirely different biochemical reaction. The enzymes involved have been shown in other studies to be recruited and adapted from different sources. But, the specificity of nucleotide insertion via the interaction between the gRNA and mRNA are similar to the tRNA editing processes in the animal and Acanthamoeba mithochondria. Eukaryotic ribose methylation of rRNAs by guide RNA molecules is a similar form of modification.
Thus, RNA editing evolved more than once. Several adaptive rationales for editing have been suggested. Editing is often described as a mechanism of correction or repair to compensate for defects in gene sequences. However, in the case of gRNA-mediated editing, this explanation does not seem possible because if a defect happens first, there is no way to generate an error-free gRNA-encoding region, which presumably arises by duplication of the original gene region. This thinking leads to an evolutionary proposal called "constructive neutral evolution" in which the order of steps is reversed, with the gratuitous capacity for editing preceding the "defect".
The RNA-editing system seen in the animal may have evolved from mononucleotide deaminases, which have led to larger gene families that include the apobec-1 and adar genes. These genes share close identity with the bacterial deaminases involved in nucleotide metabolism. The adenosine deaminase of E. coli cannot deaminate a nucleoside in the RNA; the enzyme’s reaction pocket is too small to for the RNA strand to bind to. However, this active site is widened by amino acid changes in the corresponding human analog genes, APOBEC-1 and ADAR, allowing deamination. The gRNA-mediated pan-editing in trypanosome mitochondria, involving templated insertion of U residues, is an entirely different biochemical reaction. The enzymes involved have been shown in other studies to be recruited and adapted from different sources. But, the specificity of nucleotide insertion via the interaction between the gRNA and mRNA are similar to the tRNA editing processes in the animal and Acanthamoeba mithochondria. Eukaryotic ribose methylation of rRNAs by guide RNA molecules is a similar form of modification.
Thus, RNA editing evolved more than once. Several adaptive rationales for editing have been suggested. Editing is often described as a mechanism of correction or repair to compensate for defects in gene sequences. However, in the case of gRNA-mediated editing, this explanation does not seem possible because if a defect happens first, there is no way to generate an error-free gRNA-encoding region, which presumably arises by duplication of the original gene region. This thinking leads to an evolutionary proposal called "constructive neutral evolution" in which the order of steps is reversed, with the gratuitous capacity for editing preceding the "defect".
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_editing
that is interesting. not the troll(s), multiple personalities ? anyway, nothing they find surprises me when God is at the center. i would like to hear more about the cephalopod, though. cute lil critters -
atrol:
The challenge remains unanswered. Random mutations and natural selection could never produce a system so reliant on intent and purpose.
Evolutionists have to believe that the ability to recode RNA arose because squids once did not have the ability to recode, but then a random change made recoding possible and conferred a selectable advantage.
The evolutionary account faces impossible odds.
Evolutionists have to believe that the ability to recode RNA arose because squids once did not have the ability to recode, but then a random change made recoding possible and conferred a selectable advantage.
The evolutionary account faces impossible odds.
Your source says evolution is a fact. You're brain dead
Or it might have been designed.
It pays to address a challenge without assuming the truth of your belief.
Do you seriously not see how hypocritical that is?
No.
I have not responded to a challenge to what I believe by asserting the truth of what I believe.
Perhaps you should speak less until you've learned to rationally assess a conversation. :up:
Can't fix stupid
6days
New member
Awwwww. You arw a good guy Denny and shouldn't be so hard on yourself...there is hope.
Probverbs 4:7
The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.
Jose Fly
New member
This is what passes for an acceptable counter-argument in creationist world...."Nuh uh! It couldn't happen because I SAY SO!!"
This is why creationists are laughed at.
6days
New member
Actually Stripe is discussing evidence. You are discussing beliefs. There is no evidence complex sophisticated coding systems can self create....inspite of your belief system.
(I see when i quoted you though that your words self repaired)
- Status