Intelligent Design

Ribosome Checks for Translation Errors

Spread the love

There is a vast network of information flow in a typical cell, and along with that flow there is a vast network of error checking. Damage to DNA sequences is remedied, the transcribing of DNA is checked and corrected, and at the ribosome the translation process is checked and controlled. In fact, recent research has found that the ribosome not only carefully sets up the codon-to-amino-acid translation process for success, but if an error is made the ribosome detects it and takes action after the translation process.  Read more

8 Replies to “Ribosome Checks for Translation Errors

  1. 1
  2. 2
    Mung says:

    “the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected.”
    Isn’t “quality control” a teleological term?

  3. 3
    GilDodgen says:

    The notion that this technology came about by random errors filtered by natural selection — even with the most optimistic assumptions about the available probabilistic resources — is simply absurd. An inference to design is so obvious that one must surely be in a state of self-imposed and pathological ignorance — indeed, living in some kind of bizarre fantasy land — about the reality that surrounds him.

    I’m perplexed and mystified. How is it that Darwinists cannot recognize design in biology, when each new discovery bludgeons them over the head, ever more forcefully?

    Perhaps repeated bludgeoning has turned their brains into mush.

  4. 4
    Nakashima says:

    Mr Dodgen,

    How is it that Darwinists cannot recognize design in biology, when each new discovery bludgeons them over the head, ever more forcefully?

    Oart of the Darwinists problem may be a lack of clarity about whether optimality is an argument for design. Posts such as this by Dr Hunter seem to argue yes, but look over a few threads and Dr Tyler is arguing no about Rubisco.

    Darwinists are not going to be surprised by very high function after 3.5 billion years of evolution. Near optimal function is not automatically improbable.

  5. 5
    Joseph says:

    Nakashima-san,

    It’s the origin of the function- ie the ARRIVAL – not survival- that is being questioned.

    To detect and correct errors you need to know what you are looking for and what to do once you find it.

  6. 6
    Nakashima says:

    Mr Joseph,

    First, it is helpful to look at the original research paper referenced by Dr Hunter.

    Based on the error rates given in the paper, we can see that the ribosome is no great shakes at catching errors. Mutation rates in DNA are on the order of 10^-9 per base. Error rates in the ribosome can be on the order of 10^-3, which is a million times sloppier.

    If you read the paper, you can see that the mismatch of codon and anti-codon distorts the shape of part of the ribosome, even after it has released the AA. This is like mismatched gears, and it causes further and further errors to be made until finally the distorted shape of the whole ribosome causes the release factors to match something which isn’t really a stop codon and this causes translation to stop.

    Will tighter tolerances in the ribosome lead to better reproduction and survival – yes. We would expect that there was an early period when ribosomes were even sloppier than they are now. Improving tolerances doesn’t need foresight.

  7. 7
    Collin says:

    Nakashima,

    “Darwinists are not going to be surprised by very high function after 3.5 billion years of evolution. Near optimal function is not automatically improbable.”

    That almost sounds like an expression of faith. Almight Time, please bestow Thy blessings.

  8. 8
    Joseph says:

    Collin,

    Didn’t you know about “their” trinity?

    Mother nature, Father Time and magical mystery mutations 😉

Leave a Reply