Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Five more species of bacteria use alternate genetic codes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Bringing the known number to twelve:

The genetic code that dictates how genetic information is translated into specific proteins is less rigid than scientists have long assumed, according to research published today (November 9) in eLife. In the paper, scientists report screening the genomes of more than 250,000 species of bacteria and archaea and finding five organisms that rely on an alternate genetic code, signifying branches in evolutionary history that haven’t been fully explained…

“The genetic code has been set in stone for 3 billion years,” study coauthor Yekaterina Shulgina, a Harvard University graduate student in systems biology, tells The Scientist. “The fact that some organisms have found a way to change it is really fascinating to me. Changing the genetic code requires changing ancient, important molecules like tRNAs that are so fundamental to how biology works.”

As such, the code was thought to be largely preserved across all forms of life, with scientists finding the occasional exception during the past several decades of research. In addition to finding five new alternate genetic codes, the team also verified seven others that had been discovered one-by-one in the past, bringing the total number of known exceptions in bacteria to 12.

Dan Robitzski, “Screen of 250,000 Species Reveals Tweaks to Genetic Code” at The Scientist (November 9, 2021)

Apparently, it was not set in stone. Not only was it very complex very early but it can be complex and different and still work. By now, Darwinian dogmatism is beginning to sound ridiculous.

The paper is open access.

Comments
Martin_r & PaV, As an aside, I once wrote a short article about the nature of physical laws, based on an excellent piece by Paul Davies "Frozen Accidents: Can the Laws of Physics be Explained?", which should be located at pbs.org, but may have been removed.Origenes
November 11, 2021
November
11
Nov
11
11
2021
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
PaV thank you for your contribution. As to the quote above, the problem is, that most lay Darwinists have no idea what a codon is, eventually, what is a role of a start/stop codon etc.... Therefore, they will buy anything what a Darwinian scientist says, can be as absurd/nonsensical as the claim in that 'mind-boggling' papermartin_r
November 11, 2021
November
11
Nov
11
11
2021
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
The comments made by the coauthor simply presume what is not known: we do not 'know' that the standard genetic code is 3 billion years old. We know that 'some kind' of genetic code has been around this long--if it's true that what we think to be fossils of living organisms are, in fact, fossils. But that's it. The interrelationship of these various alternate codes can never be dechipered. My point there is this: evolutionists assume Darwinian theory is correct and fit in all available evidence into that paradigm. Could anything be more dogmatic than that? As to what is involved here, listen to this quote:
But these changes shouldn’t happen under normal circumstances, Eddy explains. “If you tried to change the meaning of a codon, you’re essentially introducing simultaneous mutations all over the genome,” Eddy tells The Scientist. “Every place where that codon is used, you just substituted an amino acid. It’s just mind-boggling that an organism could survive that.” Stop codon shifts are considerably less “dramatic,” Eddy adds, because changing a stop codon to a sense codon doesn’t really change the function of a protein, but just extends its tail.
Nothing can "boggle" the mind of a committed Darwinist! Martin_r: As to Paul Davies, he's a very open-minded man who is certainly an ID-supporter as such; however, he's convinced that the 'intelligence' that crafted life here on earth came from outer space. As a mathematician, he can see through the horrible defects of neo-Darwinism ideology.PaV
November 11, 2021
November
11
Nov
11
11
2021
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Origenes @7 I respect Venter, he is obviously a very smart guy, despite he claims that he does not believe in God (i checked). Venter is honest (at least). Dawkins is parroting the same non-sense over and over again, despite his good friend (Venter) just explained to him (in front of other scientists), that he is wrong: There is no universal common descent ... there is no tree of life - that the tree of life is "an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up", ... and that they (Venter's team) sequenced 60,000,000 unique gene sets!!!!!! 60,000,000 unique gene sets!!!!!! (so far) PS: have you noticed, how Paul Davies (a physicist, the guy sitting next to Venter) is sort of teasing Venter to make a claim about the tree of life? Davies was very sneaky :)) ( Who knows Paul Davies know, that this guy is sort of a ID-supporter.)martin_r
November 11, 2021
November
11
Nov
11
11
2021
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Martin_r @6 Very funny! As per usual Dawkins comes across as too dumb to tie his own shoes.Origenes
November 11, 2021
November
11
Nov
11
11
2021
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
i can recall a debate, where Craig Venter is talking about such organisms using different genetic code (e.g. mycoplasm). Also Richard Dawkins is there repeating his mantra about the 'same' genetic code ... Venter just told him, that there are organisms using a different code, HE JUST TOLD HIM, but Dawkins seems to ignore what Venter just said :))))) very funny... See for yourself, it is a very funny short 2 minutes video, a sort of a sitcom, it was labeled: "Dr. Craig Venter Denies Common Descent in front of Richard Dawkins!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrYhINutuImartin_r
November 11, 2021
November
11
Nov
11
11
2021
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Origenes
how the heck any organism can survive a change of the genetic code. The obvious answer is: no organism can.
Exactly! But are Darwinists concerned ? They make these extremely absurd claims over and over again... and lay-Darwinists buy it ... When a rational educated person think about it, it sounds like a fake-news / hoaxmartin_r
November 11, 2021
November
11
Nov
11
11
2021
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Martin_r Do some organisms run chemical labs?
:) Yep and those chemical "labs" are even more complex than organisms ( built by the "labs"). A plant that make a car have equipment that is much more complex than the car to be made. Good luck to explain how a car has built itself. Good luck to explain evolution.Lieutenant Commander Data
November 11, 2021
November
11
Nov
11
11
2021
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
The fact that some organisms have found a way to change it is really fascinating to me. Changing the genetic code requires changing ancient, important molecules like tRNAs that are so fundamental to how biology works.
Translation: Shulgina wonders how the heck any organism can survive a change of the genetic code. The obvious answer is: no organism can. And of course the only reason we are talking about "changing the genetic code" is the uncritical adoption of the Darwinian hypothesis that all organisms are evolutionary linked.Origenes
November 11, 2021
November
11
Nov
11
11
2021
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT
The fact that some organisms have found a way to change it is really fascinating to me.
Organisms found a way to change largely preserved genetic code????? Do some organisms run chemical labs? What is wrong with these scientists ???? PS : i havent looked at the original paper yet, but i bet, that 'some' organisms found a way how the change their genetic code independently, that these organisms are not evolutionary related, in other words, this changing-code-miracles should have happened multiple times independently, which sounds even more absurdmartin_r
November 11, 2021
November
11
Nov
11
11
2021
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
And here we go again...
is less rigid than scientists have long assumed
With every new discovery, just another proof that Darwinists are always wrong...always...martin_r
November 11, 2021
November
11
Nov
11
11
2021
12:14 AM
12
12
14
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply