Genetic code

[rov1200]

Is human genetic code error correcting? I know you get mutations but the human race seems to overcome small deficiences.

As an analogy computer coding has an error correcting code.

[wildwood]

No. This is the basis of evolution. Any coding anomalies are perpetuated in the progeny.

[Clanad]

Well... that's not factual... only coding errors that occur in the germline are passed on to progeny, not those that occur in somatic cells... Damaged or mutant cells within your bone marrow or heart as an example, will not be passed on to the offspring.

[jake-the-peg]

It's not error correcting like a computer code but there aer some mechanisms.

There are some proteins that detect genetic mutations and take action if this occurs

See here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53

This protein is an absolute marvel without it you'd be lucky to make it to your teenage years

[rov1200]

via your link Jake:

Damage to DNA alters the spatial configuration of the helix and such alterations can be detected by the cell. Once damage is localized, specific DNA repair molecules bind at or near the site of damage, inducing other molecules to bind and form a complex that enables the actual repair to take place

Does this not give greater credence to the fact that a designer is necessary? To carry out a repair pre-supposes that errors could occur so would require some action later.

[rov1200]

Clanad what you say makes sense. If all the mutations were to be passed on it would only be a matter of time before the whole of the human race was affected.

Saying this interbreeding is known to pass on bad traits so this is prevented by the union of different family backgrounds.

[jake-the-peg]

No it doesn't Rov

It's really easy to see how a protein that does this could evolve. Any protein that gave even a fraction of this effect as a side effect of another process would be hugely beneficial to the organism and would therefore give an evolutionary benefit.

You're making the mistake of looking at the end product and assuming that there are no smaller steps that could lead to it.

It's the old argument about the eye

Intelligent Design Proponents have moved on from this to the key issue which is "irreducible complexity"

This is the concept of a feature that is both complex and could not have arisen by smaller side effects.

The difficult questions are therefore actually in more mundane features like the cell wall

How did the first cell wall come about? how did protein sysnthesis evolve?

Of course we may not have good answers to the tougher ones but that doesn't mean we have to assign them to God.

Gallileo could not explain Gravity - that does not mean God pulled everything down until Newton came along

[David90]

Surely natural selection (by definition) eliminates "bad" mutations ? "Good" mutations (ie those that confer a survival advantage) are the ones which are passed on to future generations ? Really , there is no such thing as an error, just a random change which will only survive if it is advantageous in some way to the species ?

[rov1200]

Jake quoting God is a turnoff for many of the population. But humans ourselves are designers. We fail to grasp though there could have been a more superior designer than ourselves. The proof is all around us

[Laasya]

Not only humans no organism has such option and it totally depends on the proof reading system.

[Old_Geezer]

There is no proof all around us at all. It may seem like proof to those who wish to believe;, but to the rest, they recognise that the systems that govern live will inevitably produce what we see around us. In places in the universe which doesn't achieve this environment, there is no life to ponder the question.