Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Manipulation of DNA by cells?
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 30 of 36 (671019)
08-21-2012 3:52 PM


Meaningless controversy
It is strange.For very long time the two different shools of thought (evolutionists and creationists) are fighting each other,in the wrong field, where no logical verdict can be drown.The only result is just tension between them.
Fortunatly during last years it became more than evident, that environment forwards to genome information that plays substantial role in life evolution. We see this role to increase each day thanks to cellular biology research.
This fact does not negate evolution theory, or its basic ideas ( e.g random mutations, n. selection), but surely decreases its size of participation in creating life divergence. Nature is quite clever not to use any possible useful mechanism for life preservation and advance of evolution. And information flow together with random mutations and n. selection are so useful things no to be used.
The real and critical question lies here: is this information, arriving from natural laws, able to give the answers needed to explain life appearance and then life evolution? Or something more is needed?
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

'If that much-spoken 'evidence" of followers of random mutations is this 'some evidence' of Panda, then there is a serious matter of credibility in this forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 08-21-2012 5:18 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 32 of 36 (671092)
08-22-2012 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Taq
08-21-2012 5:18 PM


Re: Meaningless controversy
... we can see a central role for RNA in modern life. It acts in many different roles, from gene regulator to producer of proteins to enzyme. I think this is strong evidence that RNA was the primary player in the first life. RNA can act in all of the roles that are necessary for life, from inheritance to enzymatic reactions.
Very intersting. Could RNA role be thought as something like epigenetics, though far more reaching, extented an deeper mechanism?

'If that much-spoken 'evidence" of followers of random mutations is this 'some evidence' of Panda, then there is a serious matter of credibility in this forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 08-21-2012 5:18 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 08-22-2012 10:18 AM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3641 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 36 of 36 (671195)
08-22-2012 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taq
08-22-2012 10:18 AM


Re: Meaningless controversy
"I really don't see a role for different RNA's in inheritance."
"I think this is strong evidence that RNA was the primary player in the first life. RNA can act in all of the roles that are necessary for life, from inheritance to enzymatic reactions."
Aren't these two statements contradictory?
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 08-22-2012 10:18 AM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024